sudo22 @ sudo22 @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

166

Joined

2 yr. ago

CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn't what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.

Licensed concealed carriers have a lower violent crime rate than the general public. So its unhinged to ban these individuals from carrying thinking it'll stop criminals.

Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.

Believing a politician can unilaterally suspend a right protected by both the federal and state constitution is unhinged.

I know right, this governor should have made murder illegal instead touches forhead

To others that might have also read this completely wrong: Visa as in immigration not the credit card.

Hey a fellow ex-Apollo user. Yeah I basically made an ultimatum with myself that I'd never try another Reddit app, if Apollo dies I'm gone.

Not sure but add 1 to the count.

Being skeptical of data and their sources is a fundamental part of science.

Okay

I haven't dismissed any suggestions in this conversation. "less guns" is not an actual suggestion, its a vague platitude.

And I've pointed to strong solutions to help being us in line with other nations. Adding more violations to our constitutional rights is not something I support.

I didn't say those were problems to distract from gun violence. I said those things are a solution to violence more broadly. And as a bonus, those social nets help everyone while not violating this country's fundamental rights.

Social safety nets.

Things like: Universal health care, stronger worker protections, better welfare support, better maternal/paternal assistance.

People making enough money to support themselves, aren't in constant danger of layoffs just to boost profits, can access physical and mental healthcare cheaply, aren't financially ruined because they have a baby and new a few months off work, and aren't in danger of losing everything over an emergency room visit aren't out committing violent crimes.

Focusing on "gun" violence ignores the root cause of violent crimes regardless of the weapon of choice.

The answer to the drug abuse epidemic isn't more drugs either. But banning drugs didn't do anything to help communities nor will banning guns.

This is great if you assume all gun carriers are going to commit a crime with their gun.

The problem is this order can be used to attack people who are otherwise doing nothing wrong, who might be caring explicitly because they want to protect themselves from the crime wave this order is trying to address.

Politicians like them know what they're doing is unlawful, but they also know that it takes time for courts to strike them down.

Until there's actual punishment for issuing blatantly illegal orders or laws (gun related or not) this will continue happening.

Why is this article's tone written like its rooting for rents to rise?

"there should be far less supply going into 2026, giving rents a chance to make up some ground"

It almost sounds like they could be talking a stock price falling.

Would have been a sick burn if he disagreed with her