Federal judge rules handgun laws violate Second Amendment

yeah and I am sure Michael Andretti can drive more safely at 120 MPH on the highway than some twit who is texting her boyfriend who is traveling 45 MPH. line drawing is necessary. but if someone can be trusted to vote and serve in the military they can own a handgun.

 

Wanna compare how many times a child gets pregnant from being raped and forced to keep it versus a child who's indoctrinated down the non binary path of gender affirming care?

 

OH I agree with you there -18 should be the line for everything (short of say social security etc)

 

'Who says?'

 

you have been completely brainwashed by the RW media, good luck with your life, may i suggest actually using the web as a tool for research
true liberals are not control-freaks only RW media would say so

 

me

 

what RW media puts on prime time entertainment that supports the Second Amendment, the NRA etc? If anyone has been brainwashed, its lefties who claim that AR 15s are "mass killing machines" and that the second amendment isn't an individual right or that stupid gun bans will disarm people who are trafficking narcotics, etc

 

Again, how is a character in a tv show indoctrination?
Is it indoctrination when it’s a white character?
A black character? A female character? A religious character? A handicapped character?

Why can you answer the question of what age a person should be forced to be a parent because of your teams laws?

 

It is normalizing and romanticizing a mental disorder.


"Ooh that sounds cool and unique to not conform to either boy or girl and to be your own thing!!! you get to be special in that regards you get your own special pronouns and people get to treat you specially!!"

It's almost like you guys don't know how children work.

Happy mothers day!
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1657747353724493827?s=20

Society gives this ******* an entire month to celebrate his mental disorder and now he's bitching on mother's day. Let that one sink in.

 

I fail to see what the opinion of some random on Twitter feels is relevant to this. I can post some videos of republicans saying we need a holy war to eradicate all non-believers, does that apply to all evangelicals or all republicans?

Homosexuals isn’t a mental illness and trans isn’t one either unless it becomes GD.
I wasn’t aware that trans people got an entire month though. Which month is it? I agree that groups shouldn’t get special days which is why Sunday and all the religious holidays are so absurd

 

It matters because because dumb ass progressives pass policies placating this nonsense. In our laws and in our schools. As we slowly change and bend society to normalize what is a mental disorder.

LGBTQ+ pride month? Look it up.

 

Pride month isn’t trans month.

Transgender isn’t necessarily a mental disorder, it can be if it causes the individual significant distress but isn’t always the case.

 

Transgender is absolutely gender dysphoria and a mental disorder.

And just so you know the t and LGBT stands for Trans that's part of pride month.

 

Nice non-seq you have there.
Next.

 

Nor did you, apparently.
Explain to us how the argument made by the judge can be applied to 13-17yr olds.

 

"Weapons of civilian massacre"?
LOL
You know Aussies have legal access to any number of firearms that are capable of being used to massacre civilians -- right?

 

Can you show where in the constitution there is an age limit on the second amendment?

 

The constitution doesn't strike many common law rules. In this example, age of majority.

See NYSRPA v Bruen.

 

And that’s the issue, y’all support limits not in the constitution while demanding other items be based only on the words written in the constitution

As to what the SCOTUS rules — they are so inconsistent and biased while overruling past precedent it is kind of absurd to take their rulings as concrete. They can and will likely be overruled going toward

 

Again: Read the case. The supposition of the case is essentially: What the 2a allows to be banned is easily seen by what the founders allowed contemporaneous with its passage.
To say you can have a thing, you simply point to its being a law during the founding.
You can definitely do that with age of majority and several dozen other concepts we use in American Jurisprudence which we took from anglo common law.

 

I'm sorry you don't like the fact you cannot demonstrate the argument made in this case can be applied to 13-17yr olds, but there's not much I can do about it.
Your post remains a non-seq.

 

How is this ruling inconsistent w/ other similar rulings regarding the age of majority?

^^^^
Sour grapes

 

That’s a long winded way of saying it doesn’t exist and that you don’t believe the constitution applies to the age we have arbitrarily set as a minor in most states.

But you do you

 

You can also do that with type of arms.
So we should go back to muskets?

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 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.

See DC v Heller.

You in fact cannot do that with types of arms. Just as you cannot do that with types of speech or new religions.