comment: >
  
  We don't need to justify it that way. OP is no threat to anybody so OP gets to do what he wants. That is how it is supposed to work here.
context: Spineless court makes decision based on their feelings creates confusion. 
  What a surprise!^/s >
  
  The arm must be on fire all the way to the pit. >
  
  Well that would be the literalist/originalist interpretation based on words on a page. >
  
  Caetano v. Massachusetts
  The SCOTUS was unanimous 9-0  including RBG "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" >
  
  Guess we better breakout the vx nerve gas. It's a bearable arm after all. >
  
  Yeah, where do chemical weapons fired as projectiles fall in this? Why should your handgun have more rights than my grenade launcher? >
  
  That Supreme Court decision was about stun guns and they included other criteria (based off Heller) such as military vs. civilian use, inherent risk, and how “dangerous or unusual” the weapon is. 
  The line quoted above is shutting down the claim a modern weapon by nature of being new is “unusual” and can therefore be banned. >
  
  The SCOTUS has made it clear that not all weapons and not all accessories are available to all people at all times.
  I just wish my daughter didn't have to do active shooter drills in 3rd grade.  But radicals and their nutty ideas have gotten us to that point, and want it to go even further. >
  
  I wonder if you actually realize how incredibly unlikely that is. It is on the order of .00004% chance. Four hundred thousandths of one percent. I'd be happy to work through the math with you. Most people think hundreds or thousands of children die every year in mass shootings because of the continuous misinformation and exaggeration of figures who make an opulent living off disinformation and exaggeration.
  Perhaps if some of the people who advocate "common sense" gun restrictions were capable of common sense risk evaluation, we could all discuss this more reasonably. Who is really being radically unreasonable? >
  
  Guns are now the #1 cause of children’s deaths. Common sense gun restrictions are desperately needed but the right always rushes to shut down any attempts at discussions for making any changes. The only ideas they allow us to try is dumb nonsense like:
  
  
  arming teachers (the same teachers they attack and harass by calling them “gr00mers”??)
  
  
  sending home free dna tests to identify children’s dead bodies
  
  
  More kids will die from mass shootings than they will from being harmed by attending a drag story time but republicans only care about “protecting children” from one of those things. The right’s priorities show they dgaf about keeping kids safe, they only care about kids if they can use them to justify the vile shit they already want to do. >
  
  I don't know what I am supposed to do with all this information. If you're not talking to a right-winger it all falls apart so it's just a personal attack. There are lots of liberal gun owners, we just don't make a spectacle of ourselves.
  Nobody to my knowledge has proposed making it legal to kill children. What is at issue is whether gun control advocates may abrogate the constitutional liberties of 320,000 million Americans who are no threat, over an extremely exaggerated risk they've made no effort to evaluate rationally, because they suppose it might help them feel safer in some way.
  The mere fact that you do not value your own rights does not mean the rights of others are at your disposal. >
  
  Calm down. Your constitutional liberties are gonna be fine even with more gun control. So are mine.
  Gun control worked for the automatics. You know it worked for the automatics. Red flag laws work. They would have prevented the most recent shooting in CO Springs if law enforcement had done its job and enforced the laws. But even the cops aren’t interested in keeping us safe anymore. 
  This isn’t about anyone’s “feelings”. It’s about policies that have been proven to work. >
  
  What does "it worked for the automatics" mean? You probably either mean the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the national assault weapons ban of 1994-2004? The AWB did not impose any further restrictions on automatic weapons and made no discernible difference in any crime stat. >
  
  When was the last time an automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting? >
  
  I don't know. Probably not in our lifetime. Neither full auto weapons nor military style semi-automatic rifles have ever been used much in violent crime because they are not very portable and they are difficult to conceal. If you wanted to reduce violent crime through gun control, rather than wave your pitchfork and yell at an effigy, you would go after handguns, not long guns.
  If you REALLY wanted to reduce violent crime, you would devote all this passion to ending the drug war, reforming this horrifying prison system which is just an academy for psychopathic violence, and, building a comprehensive social welfare system. Not pointless, futile gestures which amount to virtue signaling. >
  
  We are in favor of all those things, too. 
  So an infinite number of mass shootings wouldn’t convince you that we have a problem with gun violence in this country? 
  If you have no idea how many it would take to change your mind, how on earth do you think you have any rational justification for insisting we just “don’t have a problem” in the first place? >
  
  I don't see that neo-liberals are in favor of all those things to any extent beyond lip service. Where is the outrage? Where are the marches? Where are the threatened government shutdowns? Where is the incendiary rhetoric in each Presidential speech? Truth is virtually no smug comfortable Democrat gives a shit about any of it, you just want to excoriate stereotypes and caricatures and not think too hard. You're just Republicans in Subarus.
  When Alex Jones says utterly despicable things and tries to talk people into being Nazis, is that because you have free speech rights protected by the Constitution? Of course not. Should you be expected to give up your own rights because Alex Jones is a steaming stack of shit? No. Peaceful, law-abiding gun owners are no threat to you and we are not responsible for mass shootings in any way whatsoever.  Will I give up the right to protect myself and my family over hysterics? Absolutely not. Get used to it, it is not going to change, no apologies necessary from here. >
  
  If you're LGBT or a woman, the second amendment is all you have to defend yourself. >
  
  And it shouldn't be like that. I'm a trans woman and I think it's really fucked up that I have to worry about getting shot in the back when just going to the grocery store. We need to get guns out of citizens'hands (Via something like government buybacks) and revamp the process of getting them but since about half of Americans seem to have a gun fetish that won't happen. >
  
  Things shouldn't be this way, but they are. It's going to get worse before it gets better too. If you think the cops and the government are going to be on your side when the chips are down, well, I hope you're right but I don't share your faith in our institutions. >
  
  They all are.  The right to bear arms was a state level protection not a personal one.  It also was never meant to be without limit as even the founders who wrote the amendment took part in gun control restrictions after writing it.  The current interpretation of it is absurd. >
  
  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
  "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
  - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
  - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
  "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
  - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
  "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
  - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
  To me it sounds like the individual right to bear arms was a thing even back in the 1700's. >
  
  And all these people would of said the opposite if the firing rate of guns were 700 rounds per minute >
  
  “900 rounds a minute is totally rad” -John Adams 
  Modern firearms would have been totally inconceivable to our founders. Also it refers to “arms”. Under the argument given here 155 mm howitzer and cruise misses should not be regulated, their argument breaks down at that point. Also lots of references to “disciplined”, “militia” and “regulated” in those quotes…….just gonna ignore that >
  
  Lewis and Clark had a semiautomatic air gun on their expedition. There were many repeating arms in development/existence that the founding fathers would have been well aware of. Obviously they wouldn’t know exactly what we’d have but they definitely knew that firearms would continue to become deadlier and more efficient. I really don’t think their thoughts would change at all. What they would be surprised about and probably against is that non white people are allowed to have them. >
  
  That's a disingenuous argument to make. That rifle looks like it can shoot maybe 10 rounds a minute. They had no clue that we would have arms like this. >
  
  It firing 21 rounds in under 30 seconds. There were multiple repeating firearms capable of firing 8 or more rounds in 5-10 seconds at the time the constitution was written. Madison pushed for advancing the development of repeating arms during his presidency and with the knowledge those men had of the most modern weapons and how quickly the technology was advancing they had a good idea of what would come in the future. >
  
  Let’s move outside of your 30 second range…….let’s move to the 3 minute mark……..yours  is still at 21 and a cheap (400-500 dollar) AR style rifle is cable of firing about 500 rounds in that time(including reload times) before it starts or melt down. 500 rounds that would have been inconceivable for them. >
  
  Your numbers are bullshit.
  500 trigger pulls and 17 magazine changes in 180 seconds? Not a chance. >
  
  There isnt any confusion.  States dont like how the Supreme Court ruled on the issue and are intentionally defying their rulings.  Now they are tying up the courts by having all their state laws being challenged and overturned because they are not legal....and they know they are not legal.
  They are wasting tax payers resources making a political statement.
  The laws that are being passed by states are increasingly more restrictive and bizarre, either being passed by people who do not understand how firearms function and the terms associated with them or did not carefully read the contents of the legislation they voted on.
  The Democratic party is going to have all this bite them in the ass, The laws will be over turned, laws will be rolled back even further than they were before.  Agencies like the ATF could very easily end up with less authority to define redefine terms.  The national firearms act could be ruled unconstitutional.  Democrats will lose elections as a direct result of pushing strict and nonsensical gun control, and gun and ammunition sales will skyrocket as bans create a panic. >
  
  Yeah I would Laugh so hard if yesterday’s rule change by the ATF ends up gutting the NFA or ATFs power. >
  
  Well-regulated militia ... shall not be infringed.   The right likes to harp on the shall not be infringed part but not the well-regulated part. >
  
  Should we ban the use of firearms for women and the elderly than? >
  
  Subsequent laws have made it so the government cannot discriminate against someone based on their sex or age, so only allowing men of militia age would be illegal. >
  
  Tell that to the  Selective Service  committee... >
  
  
  Tell that to the  Selective Service  committee...
  
  Here's the kicker. You are the militia.
  I am the militia. Everyone is the militia.
  
  “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
  "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
  - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
  §246. Militia: composition and classes
  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. >
  
  You are preaching to the choir, bro. >
  
  All firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. >
  
  "Smart missiles for billionaires' private use" is a hell of a stance you're taking. >
  
  It's still the truth, at least according to a proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment that doesn't draw from extra premises not explicitly stated in the document. 
  Also, every minority in the United States should own an ar-15 I guess is my rebuttal to your point. >
  
  It is the literal reading of a document written over 200 year ago when things like tanks and missiles and nuclear weapons were unthinkable. Or even just guns that could fire multiple times without reloading. But yes, surely a literal reading is what is needed, and not a reading as to what the actual intent behind those words were (to allow states to continue to train their own militias).
  
  every minority in the United States should own an ar-15 I guess is my rebuttal to your point
  
  Great, they can all have AR-15s, and the militarized police will have all the cause they need to drive tanks through our cities. Any time a cop wants to murder someone, they can with no questions asked, because hey look, they're armed! Any protests pop up? Well, any of the big Republican donors could just fire off a few missiles from the safety of their mansions on the other side of the country. To protect private property, of course. Kyle Rittenhouse has already shown them that it's legal to murder people as long as it's to protect private property that you don't even own.
  But no, of course. Obviously, the smart thing to do is to reward the gun manufacturers in all this and pay them LOTS OF MONEY for MORE MORE MORE MORE GUNS!!!! That will solve our problems. All the data shows that MORE GUNS = MORE SAFETY. Or...maybe it's more guns = more preventable tragedies. But no, you're probably right. Guns for everyone will make us safer. What could possibly go wrong? >
  
  So does the freedom of the press, speech, protest….does this not include the internet, because it didn’t exist at the time >
  
  This SCOTUS is likely to allow civilians to own and carry anything they can get their hands on, including 3d printed, fully automatic, and strictly  military arms. >
  
  As the Founding Fathers intended. >
  
  I know this is anecdotal. But, literally a few days ago a 2 year old shot her mom in the foot playing with a gun. Last week a 6 year old took a gun to school and shot his teacher. Something needs to change in our society. Unless we want things to get more crazy, thats my opinion anyway. >
  
  What frustrates me is new laws are being made everyday - certain guns are made illegal, magazine capacity is being lowered, things that are legal today - will make you a felon tomorrow. People that follow all the steps correctly and fill out all the proper paperwork are the ones that are targeted with these new rules. If I plan on committing crimes, I'm not filling out paperwork. Legal / responsible gun owners are a soft target. Actually being hard on crime and going after bad people that commit terrible acts is a much harder task.
  If you read this far, sorry for the rant. >
  
  The arm must be on fire all the way to the pit. >
  
  I think the headline is a little ambiguous.  The confusion is that basically the Supreme Court is striking down every gun restriction that makes it to an opinion -- many of which go against long decided precedents.  Which brings the constitutionality of current laws under question.
  Not that there is ambiguity over which laws they are ruling are constitutional and which ones are not.  If it makes it to oral arguments it's probably going to be overturned. >
  
  So the reasoning of the argument isn't great.  Convoluted mess is probably right.  However, the effect is positive.  Removing "may issue" laws is good social progress since those types of laws usually were used against minorities or disfavored groups in the areas that law enforcement oversaw. The NY SAFE Act was passed in the dead of night with no debate.  It was the exact kind of law we'd rail against if it wasn't about gun control.   California's pistol roster is hopefully also on the chopping block.  For me, in large part, because these laws always seem to exempt law enforcement.  If they're supposed to be civilians like the rest of us, those same restrictions should apply to them.  
  I'm not quite a 2nd amendment absolutist wishing for nuclear weapons and nerve gas for all.  But machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors, etc should all be available as readily as anything else.  If you can pass the background check to buy a pistol, why do I need an additional extra special background check for an accessory? >
  
  Yeah for thumb sucking mediocracy. >
  
  The Supreme Court has lost all credibility. Just say it. >
  
  
  The Supreme Court has lost all credibility. Just say it.
  
  For ruling in line with the spirit of the 2A
  How to interpret constitutional amendments.
  
  "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 
  
  You cannot prevent peaceable people from obtaining and carrying arms.
  
  "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
  "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
  - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
  "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
  - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
  
  The militia is everyone.
  
  “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
  "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
  - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
  §246. Militia: composition and classes
  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  
  The Framers wanted us to have superior firepower to any possible standing army we may have.
  
  "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
  - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
  "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
  - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
  
  We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
  Here's an excerpt from that decision.
  
  If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
  And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >
  
  Ban them all. Responsible people at home already have in their homes. >
  
  
  Ban them all. Responsible people at home already have in their homes.
  
  That would be unconstitutional.
  How to interpret constitutional amendments.
  
  "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 
  
  You cannot prevent peaceable people from obtaining and carrying arms.
  
  "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
  - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
  "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
  - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
  - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
  "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
  - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
  
  The militia is everyone.
  
  “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
  - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
  "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
  - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
  §246. Militia: composition and classes
  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  
  The Framers wanted us to have superior firepower to any possible standing army we may have.
  
  "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
  - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
  "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
  - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
  
  We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
  Here's an excerpt from that decision.
  
  If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
  And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >
  
  As If parents who truly want safe homes don't have a right to keep themselves and their children safe , ie no guns at home ever. It's already happening. Empower parents to create safe homes , they do.  These unsafe people ie gun owners can be phased out as they kill each other and no one wants them in a community. >
  
  Are you seriously advocating for taking away the tool I used to defend my family from a convicted felon who was trying to threaten and intimidate us?
  I protected the life of my wife and son. They're safe because I used a firearm. >
  
  If it annoys you yes. Stats are absolutely clear that a gun in the home is most likely to kill someone in the home. That's still a legal decision to have a gun but you are the danger, gun violence in the us wise. It's 60% suicide of the gun owner and then likely murder by intimate partners. 
  I understand it's legal. It's a dangerous and bad decision to have a gun in the home. >
  
  Question from Canada, why do you need one other than collecting? Guns in America feel like comic books.