Gun Control

Quote: rxwine

Supposedly, (and I haven’t read any of it yet) justice Thomas argued that the 2nd should stop being a second class right and like the 1st amendment.

OK.

Quote:

So, in the case one caused a panic yelling “fire in a theater, if you go to jail, you keep your first amendment right, and when you get out of jail you have your 1st amendment right.

this in particular is not in the opinion. The First Amendment is referred to quite a bit, yes.

Quote:

Yup, that’s some deep thinking there Thomas. Just hand out guns to criminals and make sure they have one when they get out, regardless of how many people they robbed or shot. Just like the 1st.

this is unjustified mockery.

Quote: odiousgambit

this is unjustified mockery.

It's fully deserved mockery.

Quote: rxwine

It's fully deserved mockery.

What? he actually did say re-arming armed robber convicts is OK?

Only if you stretch credulity and ignore what doesn't fit,can you compare the expansive nature of the 1st to 2nd. Criminals on death row have the right, as do the deranged.

I can say Odiousgambit is like Charles Manson and Mother Teresa by only addressing the things you have in common and ignore other things. That's all Thomas did.

Let's all start carrying hand grenades. That would be fun.

Quote: DRich

Let's all start carrying hand grenades. That would be fun.

4th of July every day

Quote: rxwine

I can say Odiousgambit is like Charles Manson and Mother Teresa by only addressing the things you have in common and ignore other things. That's all Thomas did.

Now you're not making sense.

New York can still restrict permits for people with the slightest problem, maybe even something like too many parking tickets. But they instead wanted to just reverse the second amendment and refuse to issue permits to anyone. They stepped on their junk with that. Why do you think the lawsuit was brought? If these guys who had every right to defend themselves the way they saw fit, with clean records, were not denied, no lawsuit. New York could have continued to be very restrictive. But NY wanted more than that: No more permits at all.

SCOTUS did the right thing here. Quit making it about Thomas, it was 5-4 I think. If I had the gameplan like, say, the NY Times does, of course I wouldn't hesitate to call you a racist for that. Or maybe compare you to Charles Manson except for god's sake that makes no sense.

I think the Court did the right things states like NY and NJ which make you prove "a need" to open carry are very restrictive and arbitrary. If something is a right anyone who can meet the requirements (which I think should be far stricter) should be able to get a permit.

But, requiring that you have some need (which usually means that you fear of an attack directed specifically at you, not general fears with the world or whatever) has always been absurd.

The other 3 justices were on the wrong side of this decision. It is a good decision based on an illegal law.

Apparently, there was some discrimination involved in the way the law was applied. A civil rights organization hailed as a victory for civil rights.