Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.
The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.
New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.
“Gotta maximize the body count of school children”
-These judges, probably
The fact that you never once said “attack poverty since its reduction directly and drastically drops crime rates and improves mental health conditions” is pretty telling. Always about reactive punishment with you weirdos, never about proactive targetting of the underlying issues, and certainly never in any of the ways that we’ve seen to be actually helpful and productive.
I used to have my license here in Canada, I think guns are really cool and a day on the range is lovely, but they aren’t at all worth the damage and lives lost. Most people who really want them use the same kinda logic as I did when I was a child to try to get my mom to buy me a Wii, thinking I was clever.
At least point 5 is on the money, even if 3 and 4 are insane.
The government has tried to eliminate poverty since the 60s there hasn’t been meaningful gains in my lifetime despite increasing efforts.
I’m sorry, did you just say that the US government has been putting real effort into eliminating poverty?
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Absolutely mind-boggling, though you probably didn’t notice as there’s clearly not much of a mind to boggle in that nigh empty cavity betwixt your ears.
Which world government has actually attempted to end poverty but then failed spontaneously without undermining the goal?
In the US all success stories that actually address poverty are super small in scale, or cut as soon as some private well-connected business can redirect public funds to their private accounts. For example the constant “welfare reforms” that have been passed over the years and of course the limiting of social security and various food assistance. Healthcare in the form of medicare is constantly redirected for administration costs of private care providers that have record profits since covid.
Sure they’ve tried touching more and more people into poverty.
That’s literally number 1 on their comment…
“Target all levels for prosecution” is not “address the root causes of poverty” you fucking twat. Jesus tap-dancing Christ you’re thick.
A gang selling drugs on every corner and intimidating anyone who doesn’t like it is a pretty good cause of poverty though.
That’s not how gangs work, ya doofus. They’re not out there like drug vending machines forcing you to buy drugs, but poverty is a direct cause of drug use and crime.
Gangs aren’t forcing you to buy, but they are causing vandalism, theft, and intimidating the locals from reporting crimes, and generally preventing investment in an area that would improve the local economy. It’s a self reinforcing loop.
It’s like you’re deliberately ignoring the cause of the gangs in the first place and rushing as fast as you can towards punishment. Investment in communities and actual support for the impoverished has already helped. Attacking low-level gang members, especially without doing any of the FAR more important things first, just creates even more crime and the original wording prioritized the punishment and not the investment.
Stop being a fucking weirdo. Yes, good and sustainable solutions are boring but reality doesn’t give a shit about entertainment value or your inability to comprehend indirect consequences.
Hard pass. You think access to guns trumps someone’s right to freedom? That’s crazy to me.
Access to guns is part of that right to freedom in the US. None of what I listed infringes on someone else’s freedom.
Forced institution is against ones fourth amendment rights. Which is what you advocated for as a solution.
It’s a necessary evil, and it shouldn’t be indefinite or a permanent black mark. It’s definitely a difficult line. The current laws are too restrictive that warning signs can’t be acted upon until it’s too late. Previous laws were far to easy to get someone committed indefinitely with no oversight. We can get closer to a better balance where a 24-72 hour hold could actually be done before someone is holding a gun at a mall or a school. That hold could also be completely sealed so no one could use it against a person.
Ok, well banning guns is a necessary evil then too
Much of that is utterly unhinged. No wonder they’re called gun nuts. Increase children’s exposure to guns? Reduce gun-free zones?
Many countries have proven the best course is to put heavy penal sentences on gun violence and negligence, to severely limit the people allowed to handle guns, the quantity of guns they can have, and to tightly restrict the places and times they can handle them.
Not to spread them around more.
What is your specific objection in teaching age-appropriate safe handling and use? It significantly reduces accidents.
Being against such basic gun safety training is a very, very confusing position.
Being against education is part of the ban all guns platform because it lets them keep guns scary. If people understood guns their bans would be harder to pass.
Teaching and exposure is the only thing that makes sense for things you expect children to find that can be dangerous. It’s why Australian children are taught differently about spiders than other countries. Guns are going to be out there in the US.
Why expect children to find guns? That sounds more like a matter for removing the child from irresponsible parenting rather than education.
Because there are ~450 million of them in the US and parents can’t actively watch their children at all times. The reality is it can happen, even to good parents who watch their kids. It’s the same reason we should teach them about drugs or sex or anything else that a child shouldn’t be exposed to but inevitably some will. A little education can prevent a tragedy.
If a kid is in a home where they might encounter a syringe of heroin, they are removed from that home. Do the same for guns. Nuts can choose whether they want kids or guns.
Kids don’t spend 100% of their time at home. They go out in public, they go to friend’s houses, they go to parties. They will, 100% of the time, find themselves in situations where irresponsible people are making decisions. Your job as a parent is to equip your children to navigate an unsafe world.
In some places, that means knowing what to do if you stumble upon a black bear on a trail. In other places, it means knowing what to do if you find a little baggy of white powder on the ground. In the United States, it means your kid should know what to do if they find a handgun in a bathroom at a truck stop while out on a field trip. That is not a situation a parent can prevent unless they are constantly hovering over their child. It’s never likely but it can happen to anyone.
What would be irresponsible is not teaching your kid these skills so that they have to figure it out on their own, especially when they don’t understand the seriousness of the situation.
So ban guns from truck stops. Or anywhere else a kid might go. Or just ban them entirely.
Again, 450 MILLION guns. You can ban them all today, even if everyone agreed, we would be pulling guns out of cellers and closets for the next 100 years. “Ban them all” is not a thing you can just do. That would require a constitutional amendment, one that basically one supports, so good luck with that.
“Anywhere a kid might go” is literally every public place. Concealed carry is not outright banned in any state. I support pretty heavy requirements for concealed carry, but even an outright ban would not prevent this. Even so, most states have very loose requirements (or none at all) and there’s basically no political will to change that.
Teach the kids about guns. This isn’t even a political position, this is a very straightforward policy to mitigate risks that presently exist and are not going away any time soon.
It happens, we already preach safe storage and include gun locks. Exposure can make guns something that isn’t as exciting, and safe handling lessons would save lives.
The concept is that guns are so common and safety is so relaxed that finding an unlocked and loaded gun is common for a child on the US.
Obviously that is why we need to train them to shoot the commies. /s
Sounds great, but all drugs should be legal and regulated