this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
958 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2131 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.

Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.

"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.

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

Ultimately we need to thank the Roberts Court for teaching Americans that previously established rulings can be overturned, a la Roe

I'm thinking when the pendulum swings back and liberals control the court, we'll take a closer look at the part of the 2nd amendment that says 'we'll regulated'.

[–] Kase@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

'we'll regulated'

Can you imagine the chaos if SCOTUS took a second look at the 2nd amendment (in the original document, for some reason.. just go with it) and found an apostrophe?

It's been chilling there since 1789. How is this the first time somebody noticed it? What tf is "a we'll regulated militia" supposed to entail?? What will be the rippling effects on the state of national politics???

Find out on the next episode of Alternate History by a Pedantic Loser on Lemmy! (I'm sorry)

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago

I mean there are spelling mistakes in the document I'm pretty sure ;p

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

Even if that potential court swing does happen, we will still be keeping the guns. Americans have 400 million or more of them already, in private hands, mostly unregistered.

I would personally never give up that right, regardless of the law. It's a fundamental human right to self defense.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

#1 cause of death for children is gunshot. Gotta do something about that even if it does mean you can't have a tomahak missile to protect you from burglary.

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

That's a very misleading fake statistic and if you look at the total number of children in the USA who are killed OR injured by firearms annually, it amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall population, and 99.9999% of children are not killed or injured by any firearm.

So I reject your tired "but think of the children" excuse to put any limits on the freedom of American citizens.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Anything that doesn't confirm your bias is a misleading fake statistic. Also lol at the freedom thing because the guns are literally the excuse the government has used to create a massive police state where everything from middle schools to the post office has its own police force authorized to kill or arrest you and send you to do slave labor in the prison system.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

It’s not the “gotcha” you might want it to be, for dry jurisprudence reasons.

If you take the originalist approach Scalia and Thomas advocate, the original intent as written meant not ‘control’ or ‘restriction’ but ‘orderly’ or ‘well provisioned’ when speaking of military units like armies and militias. No fun, that’s the sticky web we have currently so moving on

THEN you are left with the other end - interpretation using modern means. However there’s a problem here too, because the Bill of Rights follows a template for the text of each amendment outlining “the right of the people [to do X]” and courts have already interpreted that in amendments 1 through 9 that they secure individual rights. 2A has been agreed to be an individual right, just like the other eight, in major cases in 1931 under Miller, 2008 in Heller, and again and again at state and local court levels.

Go get an amendment and do it right, don’t gut the rest of the Bill of Rights. We undid prohibition, slavery, limited suffrage, etc