The justices double-down on the laws of the 18th century.
    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 months ago

      The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

      The ruling here is exactly that

      Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

      mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should

      Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

      The revolution was fought using mainly private arms.

      And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change. The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

          Literally from Adams

          Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

          Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That’s not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was “no big deal”. That section starts off:

          The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

          and continues

          Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

          The “few lives lost in a century or two” he’s talking about are those of the people rebelling.

            • turmacar@lemmy.world
              1·
              11 months ago

              SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

              If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

                • turmacar@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

                  In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

                  Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.