[News] US Supreme Court strikes down New York law on gun carrying rights.

[Baldseagull]

Absolutely nothing new to say here. It's just too hard for the rest of us to imagine what it must be like to be living in the 21st century with a brain that's frozen forever in the Wild West.

Many towns in the old west had laws that required people to hand in their guns at a Hotel or Sheriffs office whilst in the town.

 

[The Clamp]

I think that this outcome had been anticipated.

Although unrelated, it is also expected that SCOTUS will shortly overturn the landmark abortion case of Roe v Wade

The US government is obsessed with controlling other people’s bodies. I read a contract from a US employer that a U.K. friend request of mine was asked to sign. He told them to amend it or forget it.
Rafts of requests for doctors of their choosing to carry out tests etc if he was ever off sick. It’s an e-platform company so not even a health critical role.
Another reason they must be stopped from taking over our NHS even further.

Not so keen on controlling nutters with assault rifles though.

 

[BBassic]

I think that this outcome had been anticipated.

Although unrelated, it is also expected that SCOTUS will shortly overturn the landmark abortion case of Roe v Wade

It must be absolutely terrifying to live as a woman in the United States.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Although the current composition of the Supreme Court will be seen as Trump's greatest legacy, one of his appointments of a conservative justice could have been prevented. Ruth Bader Ginsberg could have resigned during Obama's administration and she would have been replaced by Obama with a liberal justice, instead when she died during Trump's administration she was replaced by the opposite

 

[Badger Boy]

Although the current composition of the Supreme Court will be seen as Trump's greatest legacy, one of his appointments of a conservative justice could have been prevented. Ruth Bader Ginsberg could have resigned during Obama's administration and she would have been replaced by Obama with a liberal justice, instead when she died during Trump's administration she was replaced by the opposite

I really don't understand this argument. In hindsight, sure. But why should she have reduced her term just in case some historic disaster succeeded Obama? It's easy to say now. A friend of mine, an American male, said to me that he blames Obama for serving two terms and that if Obama hadn't sought re-election, Democrats would have retained the White House for longer. That, for me, is the stupidest argument I've ever heard someone try to make, in all seriousness. The Republican party are much better organised and have built a far stronger base of power in the US which the Democratic party are not even close to being able to compete with.

 

[BBassic]

Although the current composition of the Supreme Court will be seen as Trump's greatest legacy, one of his appointments of a conservative justice could have been prevented. Ruth Bader Ginsberg could have resigned during Obama's administration and she would have been replaced by Obama with a liberal justice, instead when she died during Trump's administration she was replaced by the opposite

Didn't they (the Senate? I'm not au-fait with the system) also block one of his nominations because it was an election year but went on to approve Trump's in an election year?

 

[Doc Lynam]

And yet the US bans MDF for health reasons, don't see many MDF lobby groups, they clearly need to up their game.

 

[virtual22]

As I understand it the judges have merely stated the correct interpritation of the constitusion, which is their job, no?

It's the job of the elected officials to change the constitustion? An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

So they have done their job correctly all be it it's a crazy arse right that should have been amended years ago. The fault here therefore seems to lie firmly in the politicians lap.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

There's no hope for that country.

The only way anything is likely to change is if one of the supreme court or a senior politician is shot and killed. But, even then, I doubt it would be enough of an issue to even contemplate thinking about gun reform/control.

There's been four assassinated presidents and two others attempted - didn't bring about any change ( I'll admit that some were a long time ago ).

 

[Stat Brother]

There's been four assassinated presidents and two others attempted - didn't bring about any change ( I'll admit that some were a long time ago ).

I would suggest that's because there is now very strict gun control within the vicinity of PotUS.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

There's been four assassinated presidents and two others attempted - didn't bring about any change ( I'll admit that some were a long time ago ).

I wasn't around for them, but I get the impression that there is more appetite for – at the very LEAST – more gun control or even some kind of conversation about what can be done about gun deaths.

Back then, I'm assuming there were fewer guns and, therefore, fewer gun deaths. Or we heard less about them because of the way media was back then (limited knowledge of certain events due to no 'social' media). Therefore, the need for reform wouldn't have been there so much.

 

[beorhthelm]

I really don't understand this argument. In hindsight, sure. But why should she have reduced her term just in case some historic disaster succeeded Obama? It's easy to say now. A friend of mine, an American male, said to me that he blames Obama for serving two terms and that if Obama hadn't sought re-election, Democrats would have retained the White House for longer. That, for me, is the stupidest argument I've ever heard someone try to make, in all seriousness. The Republican party are much better organised and have built a far stronger base of power in the US which the Democratic party are not even close to being able to compete with.

obvious flaw in that theory is they ended up with Trump as thier man by accident.

 

[beorhthelm]

And yet the US bans MDF for health reasons, don't see many MDF lobby groups, they clearly need to up their game.

and Kinder Surprise eggs. too dagerous for children, who might not understand its a toy inside and try to eat it.

right before getting their uncle's revolver and shooting the neighbours cat.

 

[maltaseagull]

Did Trump appoint all these pro judges?

 

[scamander]

I listen to a number of US podcasts at either end of the spectrum politically. Just some points.

1. The New York law relates to handguns. Not ARs or similar, as such unsure how this links into the wider debate involving school shootings etc.

2. Stats are spun by both sides of the debate. A common one is to include suicides where a gun is used.

3. Shootings tend to be prevalent in areas of socio-economic deprivation. In short gang related. Given that the guns aren't going away the only solution is to work on the poverty. Gun crime isn't so much of a problem in more affluent areas.

4. Most gun reform won't prevent mass shootings. You can only legally restrict guns and this can only affect those who get them legally. If I'm planning a heist I'm not bothered by parking restrictions whilst I'm holding up the bank.

We don't get the issue of guns in the US - it's a deep issue which is largely about how the state and the citizen squares off against the federal state. It's also heavily politicised. Gang violence is huge but gun rights are largely argued in the context of school shootings which are less frequent.

The US govt can get the guns back but it can look into the symptoms of these situations where guns kill.

 

[GT49er]

There's no hope for that country.

The only way anything is likely to change is if one of the supreme court or a senior politician is shot and killed. But, even then, I doubt it would be enough of an issue to even contemplate thinking about gun reform/control.

Senior politicians have been shot and killed already; no effect. If a couple of the six murderer supporting judges were gunned down, it wouldn't make any difference (apart from two c***s no longer sharing oxygen with us). A couple of their nearest and dearest children or grandchildren being randomly gunned down by a nutter with an SLR might change their minds, but .............................

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Did Trump appoint all these pro judges?

Three, I think. I believe, but may be wrong, that the Supreme Court was 5-4 in favour of the democrats when he took over. It is now 6-3 to Republicans.

This is a (mildly) interesting article on Trump and his effect on the federal judiciary.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...cent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

 

[American Seagle]

Thanks for reminding me folks. I just came on here to briefly escape this lunacy.

 

[Stat Brother]

Three, I think. I believe, but may be wrong, that the Supreme Court was 5-4 in favour of the democrats when he took over. It is now 6-3 to Republicans.

This is a (mildly) interesting article on Trump and his effect on the federal judiciary.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...cent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

It's not Trump, The Donald hasn't been in politics long enough to create this balance.

This lays squarely at the feet of Mitch McConnell.

 

[Razzoo]

It must be absolutely terrifying to live as a woman in the United States.

I don't know they rank 21st out of 170

https://en.protothema.gr/the-best-and-worst-countries-for-women-worldwide-infograhic/