Assault Against the 2nd Amendment

Went in and fixed one letter for you. I assume you didnt mean someone was attacking your lightbulbs.

There are law attempts that really do attempt to do just that. There are also, like it or not, unstable people in this country with weapons. I have watched Red Flag, legit shit, be ignored or the guns given back anyway. I am talking like RESTRAINING ORDER FOR DV ACTIVE people given back firearms. That is dangerous but at the same time 2nd so it sit in that line between is the right or the safety of that family/community more important at that moment. Mind you, these would not be "taken for good" just "taken until the TRO expired in 6 weeks while the case resolved.

 

Yeah you gotta be STUPID to stop at a red lights, or to pay taxes, or to pay for the products you take from the stores

 

It's good to see you and many more want to keep guns out of criminal hands.

So the problem is that you have been miss-informed, and you think that Democrats want gun banning. That's not true.

According to my new best friend, ChatGPT:

There is a common belief among some people in the United States that the Democrats want to ban all guns. However, this is not true. While some Democrats may support stricter gun control measures, such as background checks or limits on certain types of firearms, the party as a whole does not support a ban on all guns. In fact, many Democrats are gun owners themselves and believe in the right to bear arms. It is important to remember that there is a wide range of views on gun control within both political parties, and it is not accurate to say that any one party wants to ban all guns.

And this is one of many sources, from outside the US, of course. It's amazing how we, outside the US, know better what happens in your country:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49295962

 

And NY did exactly what I expected. And told the USSC that they were not going to participate in this ruling, the law stands and the USSC has no real ability to enforce their ruling (unless Biden decides to make DOJ back it). This is literally what I have been bringing up. What is the USSC's recourse when a state, the Feds, etc? Just tell them "No" and continue enforcing a law. If a state, as another example besides guns (NY will lose long term on this BTW), they say to the Federa; Appeals Court when the overturn an "officer does not have QI here" to "Officer does under the USSC ruling!" and lets the cop get sued directly and enforces that ruling anyway?

This is what I was talking about. A state has, officially now, told the USSC, "well we are not honoring that decision, sorry.".

 

The People are then justified to round up all the State Officials and hang them.

 

They are not. Because many of them dont CARE that the SCOTUS believes that businesses should have to let you concealed carry on their private property. That was part of the case and why many support the state here. This case is not about owning guns. It is about carrying weapons, concealed, in public. Their decision says I have to let every drunk asshole come into one of my bars ARMED if they choose to. Because my right to keep my patrons safe is secondary to their right to carry their gun wherever they please.

Mind you? I could care less if you concealed carry on the street. I encourage it. But when you cross onto private property? I reserve the right to eject you if I see it or if the metal detector goes off (yeah, safe area but drunk assholes so I invested in good ones). I also dont allow knives of any kind. Tools of any kind unless you are doing repair work for me. Etc. WE are the only armed people there. And we are all well trained and well practiced. We can bullseye a womp rat at 10 parsecs.

 

If someone attacks you, you are justified in defending yourself. If there are no legal recourse, you are justified in using illegal ones. The Democrats wants to make any kind of defense illegal, so Democrats are the Root of All Problems. If there is nothing you can do legally, they take the Democrats and hang them from the nearest tree. Then everyone's life will be better. The more the Democrats try to oppress the people, the closer we get to mass lynching's of Democrats.

 

Tell that to all the people sitting in prison for defending themselves.

 

This is evidence that gun registration leads to gun confiscation.

 

The. Case. Is. About. Concealed. Carry. Rights. Not self defense. Not gun ownership. And if and where can say you cant concealed carry. And the NYS law says you can concealed carry in public.

The SCOTUS decision literally said that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY on PRIVATE PROPERTY if you choose to. That a bar owner MUST let you concealed carry in their business. That a Starbucks must let you concealed carry. That, in effect, the court house and Legislature must let you concealed carry when you come to observe if you choose to. And NYS said "Well. We are not doing that and not letting that happen no matter how many times the court tells us they say the law is gone".

Here is the rub. What teeth does the SCOTUS have to ENFORCE their decision besides "But but but we are the SUPREME COURT and issued a command!"? If NY turns away people at public buildings with guns. If I turn away armed people from my bars (note, no one is stupid enough in my area to pack in my bars, thank god, as you pointed out the moment we see a drawn gun? we will assume threat and shoot them). You have a right to bear arms. You dont have a right to enter private property. Therefore you dont have a right to bear arms on property you dont own. Goes to the same theory of why I can (and do) post my land. No one can hunt my land without my permission. Do I give someone shit it if they wander 1/2 acre in and miss one sign? No. Are the approached with weapons 4 acres in after passing 8 large orange signs (I post them every 1/2 acre)? Yes.

 

If someone attacks you. You are. If you "Feel threatened"? Depends on the state. Many states dont CARE whether you "Felt" threatened. Only if they actually attacked.