cremaster_shake t1_irbyqwp wrote on October 6, 2022 at 9:23 PM

It's all so stupid. The Constitution has nothing to do with most of this, and the courts and (mostly) legislature know it perfectly well. Neither originalism nor textualism justifies any of this crap.

Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns. But the gun fetishism is just a weird perversion. I couldn't walk into Walmart carrying a battery-powered circular saw without getting stopped, but for some reason an AR should be fine.

It has nothing to do with American ideals and everything to do with the lowest lazy politics. I can't respect a judge that's transparently disingenuous about it. If you want to just blame the Supreme Court, say it plainly, or it's on you.

I'm not even anti-gun, not by any stretch. But the people most rabid and down-votey about this are always the people you wouldn't want to see driving, much less holding a gun.

fbtcu1998 t1_irc2bh2 wrote on October 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM

>Massachusetts was being MUCH more logical when they ruled that the Constitution doesn't say "guns," so "arms" doesn't just mean guns

Mass outlawed stun guns. A lady was arrested for having one for protection from an ex.
It went to SCOTUS. Mass courts argued they weren't covered because they were not in common use when the constitution was written. But SCOTUS already ruled in Heller that it covers all Bearable arms and not just those in common use at the time of the constitution. So her conviction was tossed, and Mass had to change the laws, stun guns are now legal in Mass. You may think it was logical, but Mas didn't view it as arms vs guns, they viewed it as arms used during the time the constitution was written. it was a very narrow view and SCOTUS overruled them.

Edit: oops terrible typo, stun guns are NOW legal