714
Hawaii rules against public carrying of guns without permit citing ‘aloha spirit’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
714 points (100.0% liked)
News
23267 readers
2732 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn't be in the constitution.
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...........
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?
You are correct on the argument.
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.
A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.
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.
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.
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.
So you think people who haven't practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???
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.