The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide things based on the headlines, but based on the Constitution. (If you want to argue that the Supreme Court decided wrongly, go for it, but that wasn't what you complained about.)

Look, gun violence is a real problem - I'm with you there. But if you want to limit guns, find ways to do it that are within the bounds of the Constitution. You don't just get to ignore the Constitution because you think fighting gun violence is important. (Or, change the Constitution. That's an option too.)

I'm hoping that the new federal legislation (with bipartisan support) will think carefully about Constitutional limits, and will find ways to be within bounds and still limit gun access.

The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today. The Supreme Court is on a clear path to destroy the mechanisms by which a modern state can function. We will soon live in a country where a legal act in one city will warrant the death penalty in another. A state that cannot adequately regulate weapons is not functional. What worked 250 years ago no longer works today.

The Constitution isn’t going to be changed because there is too much divisiveness. SCOTUS is doing what it can to foment this divisiveness. It’s time to be like Lincoln and ignore the Supreme Court. Strict adherence to words written 250 years ago is not a good way forward for the country. The U.S. is badly in need of reform for how its federal government works.

"The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia"

As a subordinate clause; what follows is independent of it. Read the book I recommended in another comment for how it came about, as a political sop to those who wanted to flatly forbid standing armies and/or regulars, which those actually experienced in the Revolutionary War starting with the indispensable man Washington were not about to accept.

"and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today."

You ready to surrender your assault ink jet and laser printers?? For that matter, the lethality of the huge hunks of lead shot by the common muskets and rifles of the day was pretty serious.

"It’s time to be like Lincoln"

And there is goes, we get our war or we'll have a civil war.

Well, that's implicitly true in what you're saying, trying to confiscate the 600 million or so guns owned by the US people will most certainly result in another civil war. But you should think harder about this; to quote Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds:

"Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.

"So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say."

Obviously, the reference to Lincoln was about him ignoring the Supreme Court and not a call to civil war. Your reading comprehension in this instance was quite bad.

One child was killed by jarts and they were banned. One person tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. But guns, let’s not ban those. Indeed let’s expand their prevalence.

If lethality and rate of gunfire being much higher today than 250 years ago is not a relevant point then why is it ok to ban machine guns? Shouldn’t I be able to protect my property with a tank or a flamethrower?

Pertaining to your comment on ink jet printers. When they are used for mass killings I’ll be willing to consider proposals for their regulation.

"As a subordinate clause; what follows is independent of it." Um... so your argument is that "when the writers of the Constitution explicitly wrote their reasoning for this clause, they didn't actually care if that reason mattered, they just felt like writing more words; and we can ignore half the sentence"? Followed shortly thereafter by lambasting people ignoring the Constitution?

...please tell me you see the irony here...

"they just felt like writing more words"

And now you're arguing in bad faith, I explicitly stated why the subordinate clause was part of the amendment and pointed you to a hard core reference for that. Not going to make any more replies to you.

At the time the Second Amendment was passed it was relatively common for private citizens to own artillery pieces that were far more lethal than modern small arms. We are a nation of laws. Your suggestion to ignore the law for the sake of expediency is horrifying, and that type of unprincipled and irresponsible attitude could lead to the downfall of our republic.

Accuracy, and reload times, etc. are much different for cannons today than they were 250 years ago. Population density is different and society is much more complex now. A well regulated militia means that the government has the right to regulate firearms. And a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the country. The second amendment is obsolete and detrimental to the country.

We are not a nation of laws. We have seen our leaders try to overthrow the government with impunity. We have government agencies engage in torture and mass surveillance with impunity. We have police forces that kill legally armed people who have done no wrong with impunity. This is not a nation of laws as you put it. We have a Supreme Court ignore precedent and make up shit with its recent rulings. We recently had a President ignore the Constitution to enrich himself and nothing came of it. We have a Supreme Court decide that it wasn’t important to ensure that the votes for President were counted correctly and appointed Bush as the winner.

The Republic ended when a coup was attempted and nothing happened to the instigators. We will soon live in a country in which a legal act in one city is a death penalty crime in another. We soon will live in a country in which the government can’t meaningfully enforce administrative rules. It’s already over unless the Constitution is drastically rewritten or the Court in its present form is changed.

So what. None of those technical differences are relevant to restricting a fundamental right. The authors of the First Amendment didn't anticipate the Internet, but we don't use that as an arbitrary reason to restrict free speech. And you have completely misunderstood the meaning of "well regulated". Read the actual Supreme Court decisions.

Just because one person violated the Constitution doesn't give you the right to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The technical difference are fundamental. To interpret the intent of the writers one has to understand the world they lived in and not merely the words they wrote. “arms” in terms of lethality, ease of use, density of population, second order effects, type of society, etc. are much different now and the amendment is obsolete. Particularly since a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense do the country. The tenth amendment is not enforced at all in terms of how it was written. It has morphed in terms of how it is interpreted since society grew much more complex. The second amendment needs to be dealt with similarly.

I didn’t say two wrongs make a right and didn’t use past violations of the Constitution as justification for anything. I just pointed out that the idea that we are a nation of laws is incorrect and that adherence to the Constitution is not done in a consistent way.

I understand the meaning of “well regulated” and I disagree with the Court’s interpretation of what that phrase means and how it should be interpreted. The Court is not infallible. Indeed, in recent times we see quite clearly how absurd it’s decisions can be. The Court should be ignored when it’s decisions are absurd. All decent governments rely on a consent of the governed and the Supreme Court has clearly overstepped itself in a slew of areas and it has lost its credibility. As such it’s recent decisions should be ignored.

If tomorrow the Court ruled that people have a right to create and use biological weapons I’m certain you’d say that the decision should be ignored. So don’t act as though the notion of ignoring the court is unthinkable or unprincipled or irresponsible. Particularly when there is historic precedent for doing so.

Nah. You're just making things up and obviously haven't done even a modicum of research on the historical context.

Clearly.

>the lethality of guns was much less than it is today

That's ludicrous, simply given the state of 21st century medicine vs 18th century medicine with respect to treatment of gunshot wounds alone.

Medicine improved, but so did the weaponry. You can't look at the medicine and ignore the increased efficiency and lethality of modern weapons.

I do disagree that the Constitution prohibits limits on public gun availability, in fact. That said, to pretend the Supreme Court here wasn't influenced by the massacres in the news would be naive. Of course they were. Their job is to interpret the Constitution to come to conclusions about what is or isn't in line with it; they are human, so their interpretations will always be colored by context.

While I agree, I think that the Supreme Court often times delays decisions and rulings to coincide with issues that will ramp up outrage for elections.

The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones. It seems to me this is a higher priority problem to solve before attempting to disarm everyone... which would encourage the existing law breakers to break the law even more and to claim many more victims. It's setting people up for much more suffering, and also no guarantee that the "bad guys" will never acquire guns.

Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal. This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power.

You're missing the point of stricter gun control laws. No one thinks that criminals will just "follow the laws" and give up their guns. The point is that the vast majority of armed criminals don't machine the weapons from the metal on their own. There is a supply chain, and some link in that chain are not criminals. Stricter regulations will impact that supply chain and make it harder for people to obtain guns who shouldn't have them. (It's also not "all or nothing"; we don't need to ensure that no criminals ever acquire guns. Any reduction in the number that do saves lives.)

Laws restricting public carrying of weapons aren't geared towards stopping career criminals, they're geared towards preventing injury and death caused by "lawful owners" accidentally, or intentionally but recklessly, firing their weapons in public, thinking they "needed to" or "should" do it. If someone wants to carry a firearm in public, it means they believe there is a situation where they will need to fire it in public. And as we know, humans are fallible and often think they "need to" do harmful things in situations where they don't. Those cases are what public carrying laws are intended to curb.

(BTW, most deaths due to firearms occur not by thugs/gangsters/career criminals, but by lawful and, prior to the incident, "responsible" gun owners making mistakes.)

Not to put a fine point on it, but everything, and I do mean everything you are saying is a lie, to the point of blood libel.

I'll just point out the most provable one: in 1980 there were 1,955 fatal gun accidents, in 2019, the most recent for which the CDC has numbers (they've been preoccupied) 486. During that period, the population increased by about half, the guns owned by it more than doubled. In part because they become a lot more useful outside of states like New York because we went from two states, Washington and Vermont that were Shall Issue or better to 43, with 74% of the population. Per million residents 8.6 to 1.5 accidental deaths.

Your claim completely flies in the face of 41 states allowing any citizen of good standing, not even a licence required in 24 with another next year, carrying concealed.

I'm not sure what you think the numbers you mentioned "prove"; you listed numbers for accidental gun deaths without comparing them to the total number of gun deaths. The questions we're discussing are "are more than 50% of gun deaths attributable to unintentional gun killings?" and "can regulations about who can carry guns, where, and when reduce that number?" Your statistics don't address either question.

"Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal."

AKA Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" policy. Pretty sure that's already illegal/unconstitutional.

"This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power."

"The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."

>The glaring problem is that police can't stop crime from happening. Some cities have rampaging gang violence, which often are gun-free zones.

It's not a glaring problem that police can't stop crime from happening - that isn't their purpose, and barring the use of Minority Report style telepaths in jars of goo, not even feasible.

>Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal.

We do, after they commit crimes. What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes?

> We do, after they commit crimes.

I would be surprised if most gun violence is first time offenders that don't repeat because their gun was taken away. I would guess they keep getting illegal guns and continue living that life and putting everyone around them at risk.

> What legal means are you suggesting to take guns away from people before they commit crimes?

More prison time, perhaps, but not without prison reform of some kind, which is another problem. However, removing people from society for long enough time should make everyone else think twice.

Granted, first time offenders who go insane is a different problem. My point is there are other bigger problems, and the fact those are not solved by gun control suggests it won't solve it for these other edge cases.

This decision has no bearing on what kinds of weapons are available to the public.

your comment is just so vacuous and low-effort

all this ruling stipulates is that jurisdictions are barred from employing arbitrary standards as a means of gatekeeping access to a Constitutional Right (like it or not, that has already been established in Heller)

so in California, it won't be fair game for the Sheriff to ask for campaign contributions in exchange for a favorable CCW consideration...and in NY you won't have to exploit political connections for merit of the same

Heller intentionally made no mention of public carrying of weapons, only private carrying on private property. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

So, no, Heller did not establish a Constitutional right to carry weapons in public.

That is not all the ruling implies or will lead too. You are badly distorting the impact this ruling will have.