214
So then why are they banned in federal buildings? If they are not dangerous allow them everywhere, hypocrites
they area also banned at REPUBLICAN events like cpac.
I mean in reality they are allowed in federal buildings, just not for citizens. They're also banned at sporting events. I don't think anyone is arguing guns aren't dangerous any more then people argue cars aren't dangerous, but we're still allowed to legislate where you can and can't drive. No ones saying 'If cars are so safe why can't I drive on the sidewalk?' Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
Property owners are still free to make their property gun free zones, this decision just means you don't need express consent to enter if there's no signage or rules stating that.
but we're still allowed to legislate where you can and can't drive. No ones saying 'If cars are so safe why can't I drive on the sidewalk?'
Just from a legal standpoint, that’s an especially bad example because nobody, anywhere in this country, has any right to drive anywhere, especially not a constitutionally-protected one. Driving is a privilege bestowed by the states.
In fact, if something so dangerous as driving a car is a highly regulated privilege, and not right, then maybe carrying a gun should be too.
What drives the rest of the world crazy, is Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government. Well guess what kind of government you have right now, and people aren’t doing shite.
Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government
That was only ever pro-gun misinformation to make unchecked private gun ownership sound not just reasonable, but HEROIC.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to provide assistance for national defense AGAINST rebellions as an alternative to a standing army.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to affirm the right of the "Militia" (i.e. the People) to defend the "free State" (i.e. themselves against tyranny).
The thing was written by people who had literally just finished rebelling against their legitimate government. You cannot credibly say they weren't pro-rebellion.
the "Militia" (i.e. the ~~People~~ well-regulated militias)
Fixed it for you.
to defend the "free State" (i.e. ~~themselves against tyranny~~ the state against its enemies).
Fixed that too.
People don't tend to write laws in code, actually.
When you write "security of a free state" and "well-regulated militia" in a legally binding text, what you mean ISN'T "defense against an oppressive state" and "well-regulated militias" ISN'T "everyone, regardless of whether they're in a well-regulated militia".
To quote someone who was as wrong about it as you are but could turn a phrase sometimes, your interpretation is pure applesauce.
the "Militia" (i.e. the ~~People~~ well-regulated militias)
Fixed it for you.
Bullshit, I was right the first time. "Militia" means "every able-bodied adult male" and "well-regulated" means "well-trained."
People don't tend to write laws in code, actually.
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.
Bottom line is this: I'm right, you're wrong, the end, bye-bye.
Bullshit, I was right the first time
Nope. You just weren't.
Militia" means "every able-bodied adult male"
No. Militia is a specific thing. Militia means militia. If they had meant "every able-bodied male", that's what they would have written, except they'd probably go with "man" like in the founding documents.
"well-regulated" means "well-trained.
Again, regulation and training are different things, ESPECIALLY in a government context.
Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔
You're using the meme wrong. Using the word "actually" doesn't automatically make you the ackchyually guy regardless of context.
Then again, misunderstanding intention, meaning, and context in order to misrepresent the words of others seems to be your favorite thing 🙄
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism
Right back at you.
I'm not revising anything. I'm explaining the literal and obvious meaning of language meant to be literal and obvious.
When writing law, having the literal text be the same as the intention is RULE ONE.
The only way your interpretation can possibly be correct is if the founding fathers were EXTREMELY bad at legislating.
We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers.
The Federalist Papers weren't law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.
When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.
Bottom line is this: I'm right, you're wrong, the end, bye-bye.
Right back at you.
Everything you just wrote is a fucking lie. You are persistently trying to apply your 21^st^ century "understanding" to 18^th^ century writing and getting it objectively, factually, wrong. And then you're trying to draw bullshit conclusions based on that incorrect understanding!
Take this nonsense, for instance:
Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔
You think you found some sort of gotcha logical contradiction, but you can't get out of your own ass long enough to realize that, whoops, your premise is wrong because you didn't even read the "literal and obvious" plain text of the damn thing correctly. The "shall not be infringed" part does not depend on the "well-regulated" part, which means your "if" is false! "Well-regulated" is a reason and an aspiration, but it is not a requirement.
The Federalist Papers weren’t law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.
We were arguing about the intent of the founding fathers. Now you're trying to pretend the documents where they literally explained their intent somehow don't count because "that's just, like, their opinion, man." That is just blatant bad faith. You don't give a fuck about what's true or correct or right; you're just trying to beat me into submission with a gish gallop of bullshit.
When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.
Again, the law doesn't say what you think it says, and never did.
Speaking of which: why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway? Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State? Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?
I've read most of it as an impartial judge and here's my verdict: you're both mixing some valid arguments with bullshit, you both lost focus long time ago and your stupid style of replying is impossible to follow.
The reality is simply that the US constitution is an outdated document that should not serve as the basis for laws in a modern country. It was great at creating an extremely stable system but unfortunately the system it created sucks. It completely failed at granting meaningful rights to it's citizens and preventing fascism. Arguing about how some slave rapists envisioned the state should handle semi automatic rifles has as much sense as arguing about maximum possible Warp speed or something. It's all fantasy because founding fathers had no idea what the country will look like 200 years later and didn't prepare the laws for it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well if were speaking legally one of those is legally protected by an amendment to the constitution and one is a privilege added far after the writing of the document. Its not the fault of the firearm that no one called a constitution convention about cars.
woosh
Ran out of rebuttal already?
rebut what? the fact that you completely misunderstood what I said?
I don't feel like debating someone who clearly doesn't understand me or the subject under discussion. it would bee exhausting and pointless, and I have better things to do.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"Hmph! Had enough of my wit?" they smugly replied with crossed arms, staring directly into the lifeless, beady eyes of a strawman. But rather than straw, it was excrement. And rather than the shape of a man, it instead was a toddler. Baffled onlookers wrinkled their noses before finding another place to be.
Unbothered by the foul odor or soiling on their hands and trousers, their chuckles echoed off the walls of an empty room. "These kids never learn," they smirked.
You literally have no rebuttal, argument, or defense.
You are replying to someone without reading their comment in the slightest
Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
That's precisely my argument. I don't think people need to be carrying them at all
'This shouldn't be allowed everywhere' and 'This should be allowed nowhere' are not the same arguement though, I don't see how my quote fits your argument at all tbh.
Why are guns only allowed places where they are not, yet they champion their rights every where else. They can't have it both ways. Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn't have them. I don't know why there is this grey zone, that is conveniently where they happen to be at all times, yet we are the ones constantly put in danger due to the lax gun laws and regulations
load more comments
(1 replies)
It is not a fringe opinion in the American gun space that all firearms should be allowed anywhere, all existing gun laws should be dismantled, and any politician who tries to legislate guns should be tried for treason, or just shot.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, because that is exactly the mindset the gun lobby has.
[Edit] And are spending their lobbying money on to try and get approved into legislation, I should add.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Let me guess, guns still banned from supreme court public events?
If it's private property can't the property owners just put up signs?
Yep thats literally all they need to do. This bill just means if theres no signs you can walk in a public place without first tracking down who the owner is and getting expressed consent from them.
Edit after re-reading the opinion a few times: Im pretty sure it doesn't necessarily have to be a posted sign either. Roberts mentions carriers being welcome UNTIL consent is withdrawn. A buisness owner should be able to withdraw consent multiple ways; signs, publicly avaliable rules that may or may not be visually posted, or even verbally telling someone carrying is not allowed. If im interpreting correctly, I believe the majority is trying to say that you just can't get in trouble for going in without first asking consent, but as soon as consent is known to you to be withdrawn, you're still liable to follow those rules. Similar to if you were tresspassing somewhere that had no signs posted; no immediate trouble as long as you respect the owner should they inform you and ask you to leave.
In Poland, if you have a gun permit (which is hard to get) you have to follow many rules to carry it like you can't drink alcohol if you have your gun on you or you have to wear lose clothes that cover the gun. This is common sense but it also makes carrying a gun inconvenient (no beer and long shirts even during summer) so that people only carry them if they have to, not for fun. Requiring consent does the same thing: it's inconvenient to ask for consent all the time. Since Supreme Court is abolishing all the laws states can use to regulate guns they have to look for solutions like that. Small rules that limit the number of guns in the public places a bit. By abolishing all those rules the SC is just doing the bidding of the gun lobby and making sure people buy as many guns as possible.
It's corruption, that's all there is to it.
I guess in addition to "No soliciting" my front door sign will also have to say "No firearms".
Not an expert in all the laws in Hawaii or the technical way this ones written, but this seems to target places that do buisness or are otherwise open to the general public. It would be much less of an undue burden to locate the owner of a private residence before entering and obtain consent, since you kind of need that to enter a persons home legally anyway. If Hawaii rewrote this law about private houses, Id be pissed too if they overturned it.
In the absense of that law existing though posting 'no guns' will likely be necessary as people can't follow rules they dont know exists.
In Texas there is a law that only LEOs can carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from alcohol sales, and other businesses can post that firearms are not permitted. I’m curious how this ruling squares with those laws.
Easily if you read the article. No one is banning gun free zones.
Because this law is about places that do not have signs. It's the question of, "I have a gun and want to go into a store, but there is no sign saying "no guns" and I can't find the owner. Who do I talk to so I can get agreement to come into the store?" This is not banning "no guns allowed" signs. It's about having to ask permission of a person who may not even live in the state to enter a place that the public is allowed to enter.
I fucking hate people in this country.
Like "leave the gun in your fucking car you freak" isn't an option?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is to give coverage to ICE terrorists and January 6th Confederates. Bluehaired radical leftist transfolk, or anyone of decent character, should respond in kind.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that Hawaii had flipped the common-law rule under which anyone, including those lawfully armed, may enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent. By requiring affirmative consent for firearms specifically, the Court reasoned, the state imposed a “new and significant burden” on permit holders, who would otherwise risk criminal liability merely by entering gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores and other everyday businesses without a posted welcome.
So, either we're allowed to bring guns anywhere including federal buildings, or guns are only allowed to be blanket banned from buildings.
He said 'Unless the owner withdraws consent' that does not mean everywhere or nowhere. You dont have to look hard for honest critisicm of Roberts but pretending like hes saying there are no more gun free zones isn't helping, its misinformation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
As a pro second-amendment libertarian... this is nuts. Impeach and limit.
Gun free zones are still fine as long as there are signs or rules from the property owner.
Im curious what to you is nuts about not haveing to find and contact the owner of a public storefront before entering that public place when there are no posted signs or rules about guns?
It flips the burden of responsibility. You have a second amendment right to carry a gun but with that right comes the responsibility of ensuring you do not violate others rights with it. If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure others know they aren't a threat.
If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent.
Considering this law is about licensed permit holders and public spaces I would say that's extremely unreasonable to assume. Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they're allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.
Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?
The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one
Listen, I own guns. I like basically anything that fires any kind of projectile. I've got bows and slingshots and BB guns and air rifles. I think all these things are totally reasonable to own.
However, anyone with half a functioning brain should be able to easily understand why guns are incredibly threatening.
When you want to play cowboy and carry around a gun you need to understand that you live in a world where public shootings happen all the fucking time. Assuming someone is carrying because they intend to do harm is entirely reasonsble and the only safe assumption one can make.
Someone owning a bit of paper with "the NRA spent billions to make sure I get to carry around my penis replacement" on it does not in any way indicate that they are safe to be around.
If you want the extraordinary privilege of carrying around something that can kill indiscriminately, you should be willing to take the extraordinary responsibility of going out of your way to keep everyone around you feeling safe. If you aren't willing to do this you've kind of already indicated you're a potential threat.
Someone owning a bit of paper with "the NRA spent billions to make sure I get to carry around my penis replacement" on it does not in any way indicate that they are safe to be around.
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter, but do you even know what the process in HI is or are you from a different state?
But still, none of what you said makes it okay to assume someone doing something they're allowed to do in a place they're allowed to do it is thete to comitt a crime. Is that the power you want to give the goverment? Allowing them to percieve anyone as a threat for exercising rights they have? I don't think you could impliment a law like that without extreme potential for abuse and confusion around enforcememt. Not every law that targets 'bad' things is a good law.
If you think the permits are too easy to get that's an entirely seperate issue you cannot solve with either way this SC decision would go.
Is that the power you want to give the goverment?
This is the power I want to give to restaurant and store owners. The rank hypocrisy I see on these topics is just stunning. "You can't force a store owner to make a cake for the gays but you can force them to allow dangerous weapons into their place of business."
Then maybe start with making the permits stricter...
Sure. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Let's make it fucking hard to get a permit and let businesses owners decide if they're allowed in.
Also, can I borrow several billion dollars to use in legal contests with extremely powerful lobbies? You must have it laying around with how simple you make it seem.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
214 points (100.0% liked)
News
38594 readers
1808 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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 3 years ago
MODERATORS