this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
225 points (97.1% liked)

News

22869 readers
4092 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The rulings in Maryland and Oregon come amid a shifting legal landscape in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that has imposed new limits on gun regulation.

In the wake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that significantly limits what the government can do to restrict guns, states led by Democrats have scrambled to circumvent or test the limits of the ruling. A few have approved new gun restrictions. Oregon even passed a ballot initiative to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But this week, supporters of the new gun measures suffered a pair of setbacks, underscoring the rippling effect of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled that a 10-year-old Maryland law related to licensing requirements for handguns was unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Why do you think law abiding citizens should be gassed, arrested and shot at for exercising their constitutional right to petition the government against grievances? Because Trump sure enjoyed doing those things and he says he's going to do it even more if he gets re-elected. And then there's the Republican love of cruel and unusual punishments. And, of course, there's Mike Johnson and other Republicans denying that there is or should be a separation between church and state.

Seems like maybe the people who are supposed to protect your constitutional right to own a gun don't really care about other constitutional rights.

[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Point out the part of my comment where I said that

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What a lot of whataboutism. I'm against all of that, too, but I can also be against limits on my rights of self defense.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So do you vote for the people who promise to protect your gun rights at all cost or do you vote for the people who feel there needs to be sensible gun regulations?

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't vote for the people you're talking about

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What is the point of voting for anyone else? What do you achieve?

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What's the point of voting for the two choices you hate when there are other choices?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Now you see the crux of the issue it seems, on either side someone is attacking the right to something, there is no champion of all rights, everyone wants to control their neighbor.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me like one is championing ending all of those rights and the other isn't.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well you'd be wrong, sorry dude.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Both clearly seek to limit different civil liberties, and supporters of each fight about why what they want to limit isn't actually a civil liberty.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Please show me the Democratic Party's equivalent to Project 2025.

Or did you not even read it?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are you denying that the democrat party seeks to limit the right to bear arms? Because by being purposefully obtuse and attempting to deflect (which appears to be your typical MO), you seem to be saying that.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I know, one side seeks to regulate firearms like they were regulated for pretty much all of the 19th century and the other seeks to violate the Constitution in every way possible. No different.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I guess it's just a question of how much infringement on rights you support. You support "some." I do not.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You still haven't given me the equivalent plan of Project 2025 that the Democrats have. Can't imagine why...

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I never claimed they had one, I claimed they also are attempting to limit other rights, and this little deflection of yours is adorable but irrelevant, so yes I ignore it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Limit" vs. "take away entirely." Interesting.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Just get stabbed a few times VS get murdered." Interesting.

Lol yes clearly one is worse, but both are bad choices, you dingleberry.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And now that you've decided to resort to insults, there is no reason to continue this conversation. I am not interested in uncivil conversation.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

There wasn't a reason to continue when you resorted to deflection, which is all you're capable of it seems.