This article was originally published at ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1473318
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1473318
1 Like
Lives at stake has never been a concern for the conservative justices on SCOTUS.
Just saying.
20 Likes
Certainly not women’s lives.
17 Likes
It seems that with all the strawman examples of who could be barred from having a gun, the real question facing the court is this:
Are any restraining orders prior to trial constitutional as they are an infringement on rights.
8 Likes
I suppose they can find a “major question” that necessitates a hell yeah…let 'em have the guns decision. Or perhaps they can divine what the thinking on these things was in 1789 and forbid us taking a modern approach to this modern problem.
12 Likes
Only victims of domestic abuse will be barred from having guns.
They might want to get even and that is not Christian.
11 Likes
Why don’t they just ask Leonard Leo what he thinks, and then the USSCT can turn to something else like making contraception illegal.
11 Likes
Please. “Lives could be at stake.”
When it comes to lives that matter, the SCOTUS has spoken. Straight white Christian male lives matter most, and even more before they’re born.
Every other life, gay men and women, trans men and women, black men, black women, Muslim men and women, Jewish men and women, atheists, liberals even straight white Christian women and mothers are garbage to be tossed aside.
10 Likes
Why do I suspect that the SCoTUS will decide that it’s only okay to take guns away from women charged with “domestic abuse” – or women being victimized by a (male) abuser?
What kind of rationale might they use? LIke,
- back in the 1700s, only men had guns, therefore…"
- domestic abusers are not general threats to the public at large, just to the one person; therefore, a general disarming is inappropriate…
- the 'right to bear arms was clearly intended to apply only to men, and is absolute*
- the plaintiff doesn’t have standing
10 Likes
only to white property owners
FIFY
6 Likes
The headline is an understatement.
Lives are at stake.
Not that it matters at all to the Nine Philosophers Regnant.
9 Likes
Women are five times more likely to be killed in a domestic violence incident when the abuser has access to a gun. Advocates argue that the gun restrictions tied to such orders are among the most powerful tools for domestic violence victims and that without them, more people will die.
While the framers of the constitution might have approved of being able to kill your wife, I doubt even they would have classified this as ‘well regulated militia’.
There are no depths to which Republicans will not stoop to make women 3rd class citizens.
17 Likes
if it’s in the womb, they’ll scream about the sacredness of life - after - meh, it’s more important that people are terrorized in their own homes, businesses and schools
16 Likes
If 2A is all-encompassing, cannot-be-denied for anything, then why are age limits constitutional? Just devil’s advocating here, but why is a 10 year old banned from having guns? Does 2A say only adults can possess them; if not, then why are any limits based on age considered constitutional by this gang of schmucks in SCOTUS?
Yes, society would become a mess if kids could own and carry them, but this version of SCOTUS seems not to care a whit about their impact on society, so…?
13 Likes
Dear God:
The only thing hard and 6 inches long and goes bang in my pocket anymore is black.
Send Jesus.
1 Like
Yup, the horse is clearly out of the barn on that one.
4 Likes
Loreena Bobbitt
3 Likes
1 Like
Since there’s long historic precedent for men beating the shit out of women I wouldn’t be surprised to see this corrupt shitshow not only give guns to back abusers, but enshrine spousal abuse into the fucking constitution.
4 Likes
Good one!
1 Like