It… It almost feels like common sense prevailed??
Yes, it’s common sense that US needs more guns.
I’d argue at the very least, the left needs more guns
That overlooks the disarmament of some, on the basis that they are assumed to be dangerous or harmful without ever having done anything to be labeled as such and thus lose rights, while allowing those rights to others.
deleted by creator
In sane countries there’s no such thing as “right to have guns”. Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that. In sane countries there’s plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone’s gun is basically a death sentence. “You can’t disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?” It would be hilarious if t wasn’t so sad.
It’s just the equal application of the law in this case.
“Drug users” includes marijuana. It’s argued that the vast number of users can’t all be seen as dangerous. It’s clearly not what it was meant to do.
Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Ah yes because being addicted to a legal substance such as alcohol is leagues safer. No one ever got drunk and murdered anyone amirite. They’re not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment any time soon so while it’s still there at least we’re getting a bit more fairness from the laws.
Yes, “more guns” is usually the right answer. It’s not like guns ever killed anyone, amiright?
I assure you there will be the same amount of guns in the US with or without this ruling.
Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that.
I’m sure you’re going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you’re going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.
US constitution is a relict that should have been rewritten 150 years go. It contains many incredibly stupid rules like for example legalizing slavery. Pretty embarrassing in XXI century to be honest. The “well regulated militia” is just another stupid term and no one even remembers what it meant. Honestly, I don’t really care if you will allow your drug addicts and well regulated militias to keep their guns or not. I’m just saying that the entire situation is stupid and there’s nothing “common sense” about any of it.
We agree with your anti-weapon stance. But the USA does not give up its guns. Ergo, access should be equal, not only for the (rich) white middle aged folks…
Okay, then can you explain what you meant by:
Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that.
Because if it’s not the well regulated militia thing, I’m unaware.
Yes, I mean that they never meant to grant everyone some sacred right to own a gun. There were supposed to be some rules around it. Today no one can agree on what those rules were supposed to be. Is “well regulated militia” an army? Regulated by government? Is it still necessary to the security? If not does it still apply? It’s badly written, outdated law. Clinging to it like it’s the only thing saving the democracy is silly. The Supreme Court could abolish it as easily as it did all the other rights. We all know why it didn’t ($$$).
No, I didn’t say that!! 😉
But now ppl of colour can have easier access to guns too.
The court said the old laws focused on people whose substance abuse left them unable to manage their lives, while the federal law broadly covered regular drug users regardless of whether they posed a threat to anyone.
“It’s a good day for the Second Amendment when all nine justices can agree to protect gun rights,” Severino said. "The mere fact of illegal drug use, without more, isn’t enough to justify prosecution for gun ownership. Historically, ‘habitual drunkards’ who habitually lost use of their reason could have their rights restricted, but not just regular drinkers — even including Founding Fathers like John Adams, who drank ‘a tankard of hard cider’ with breakfast, or James Madison, who ‘consumed a pint of whisky daily.’
Seems like an incredibly reasonable take.
This headline is seriously misleading. The court did not “strike down” the entire law.
The law says that users of illegal drugs cannot purchase guns. The court said that the law cannot stop a person who uses marijuana a few times per week from buying a gun. Because marijuana usage is common and normalized now, a gun ban would violate that person’s right to keep and bear arms.
This decision does not automatically get Hunter Biden off the hook, because Hunter Biden’s case involved a much greater variety of drugs. Hunter will certainly try to litigate this, but success is not certain for him.
Why would he litigate it, he was pardoned. 0 incentive to put himself into more public scrutiny
