State’s high court upholds the Hawaiian Spirit Law and quotes The Wire in apparent rebuke to US supreme court: ‘They the old days’
  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    45·
    10 months ago

    Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?

    • scoobford@lemmy.zip
      32·
      10 months ago

      No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it’s wrong.

      You can get out of military service this way though.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        10 months ago

        It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          1·
          9 months ago

          Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.

          For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person’s autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        How is that any different? It’s still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          1·
          9 months ago

          While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.

          I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn’t have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn’t alive. Now it is. "

      • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        18·
        10 months ago

        That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we’re talking about so I imagine it’s much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.

        • EldritchFeminity
          30·
          10 months ago

          Considering the easiest way to get a gun “illegally” is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            29·
            10 months ago

            I hate this argument because it shows just how little people know about gun laws.

            It’s federally illegal to buy a pistol outside of your home state. You can’t just go to a gun shop the next state over and buy a Glock 17.

            For long guns, the seller must follow the laws of the state in which it is sold AND in which the buyer lives.

            When I sold guns and someone from New Jersey wanted to buy a rifle, they had to produce their New Jersey permit and I to do the New Jersey background check and waiting period on top of the NICS background check required federally. I had to reference New Jersey laws and could only sell guns that were legal in that state.

            We had a spreadsheet we kept up to date with every firearm we had in stock, new or used, listing whether it was legal in each state.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                1·
                9 months ago

                The argument I’m replying to is that criminals are buying guns in neighboring states because the laws are looser and they can get away with it.

                But the laws regarding buying a gun outside one’s home state are federal, and don’t change from state to state. A California resident buying a Glock 43 in Texas is no more legal than them buying it in California. In fact - it’s moreso. Buying it in California is just buying a gun illegally by California law. Buying it in Texas is violating California, Texas, and Federal law, and then illegally smuggling the gun afterwards.

  • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
    26·
    10 months ago

    It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.

  • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
    25·
    10 months ago

    Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        9·
        10 months ago

        True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol

        • Saganaki@lemmy.one
          14·
          10 months ago

          Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).

          • Zatore@lemm.ee
            8·
            10 months ago

            The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              5·
              10 months ago

              Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

              • Zatore@lemm.ee
                4·
                10 months ago

                I dislike this “only guns from 1700’s” argument. The constitution didn’t make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn’t possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict “new” guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I’ll have to research more.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one

                  We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.

                  Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people

              • bluewing@lemm.ee
                3·
                10 months ago

                You are already a member of a militia in the US - it’s called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.

                This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.

                I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being “called up” by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I’m old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.

                So perhaps you should get that musket and start training…

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.

                  Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That’s very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?

            • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              We put law on paper because other paper has law on it

              My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            6·
            10 months ago

            A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
          6·
          10 months ago

          The cost of complying with the dozens of legal hoops is often like 10-20x or more than the price of just a cheap pistol itself.

          Larger financial barriers just mean if you’re rich you can do what you want and if you’re not, you’re fucked, which often leads to people breaking these dumb laws and the cycle getting worse.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            2·
            10 months ago

            Larger financial barriers just mean if you’re rich you can do what you want and if you’re not, you’re fucked,

            This is a very dumb mentality. Like making sure your car is safe and roadworthy costs money. But we don’t view people who drive with broken break lights or worn out tyres so sympathetically.

            • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
              3·
              10 months ago

              A janky car is a danger to others on the road, not having the proper paperwork for your gun only puts yourself in legal danger.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                2·
                9 months ago

                So you think people who haven’t practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???

                • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  Well an apples to apples comparison would be a rusty or dirty gun, which is way more likely to simply not work than it is to malfunction in a dangerous way. A rusty old car has multiple failure points that are dangerous to people who aren’t the driver.

                  As for user competence, I would love to see firearms training become a standard class option in high school, just like driving is now. I’d rather we had a society where neither were necessary, but we’re not anywhere close to that ideal on either front.

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
        6·
        10 months ago

        No, you can’t. Hawaii is not a shall-issue state. It’s pretty much impossible to get a permit there. Also, criminals won’t be getting permits so why should we make law abiding citizens get them.

        Make the bad thing illegal. Don’t make the tools or the intermediate steps illegal

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      15·
      10 months ago

      Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?

      It’s absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      11·
      10 months ago

      I can’t imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.

      • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        10 months ago

        It’s not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          13·
          10 months ago

          My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you’re just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.

          Just go play roblox or something instead. It’s a better use of your time kid.

          • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
            4·
            9 months ago

            Labeling everything you don’t agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              2·
              9 months ago

              Well it’s a good thing there’s plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn’t it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn’t mean I say the same about anything and everything.

              Its the typical right wing argument of “not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis” when no one is doing that.

              The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.