this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1090 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2797 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 2 years 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
[–] TokenBoomer 53 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Never understood why you have to have insurance to operate vehicles, but not have insurance for weapons, or dogs for that matter.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 34 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Because owning of weapons is a constitutional right with very limited means to restrict your rights too.

owning/operating a vehicle is simply a privilege that is easily revoked for any number of reasons, and can have many barriers between you and having it.

Because the constitution was written 200 years ago, and is not fit for the modern day.

[–] Witchfire 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Requiring insurance should fall under the definition of "well regulated"

[–] A_Random_Idiot 29 points 10 months ago

In a common sense society that doesnt worship a single phrase from a 200 year old document, yes.

[–] Death_Equity 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

"Well regulated" does not mean now what it meant back then. In the context of the constitutional times "regulated" meant trained, supplied, and such shape ready to fight instead of legislated or controlled by the government.

[–] VindictiveJudge 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You could also argue that the National Guard is the well regulated militia.

[–] GooseFinger 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Depending on which modern definition of "militia" you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn't one.

But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn't grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It'd be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That's a natural right.

Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying "the government may not infringe on the People's right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces." Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Hello, I would just like to take a moment to say that while yes, at the time "the people" were only considered to be white men (and in some cases white landowners specifically), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868, shortly after the end of the civil war (1865), this has not been the case. We fought a whole ass war over this and won. It took a while and people contested it, yes, but now black people have the same rights as everyone else, thankfully.

This doesn't mean racism is gone, but it does mean the words written in the bill of rights apply to POC regardless of what it meant at the time of the founding fathers. People often use their slave ownership as a means to discredit the words in the constitution and bill of rights, however I think it is more pertinent to discredit their practice of slave ownership and still like "all men are created equal" as a concept how it applies today.

Not to say you were doing that, but you mentioned it so I figured it's just a good place to say "I for one am happy the BOR now applies to everyone, as it should have back then. Took long e-damn-nuff."

[–] njm1314 2 points 10 months ago

We could also be realistic and admit that the point of the Second Amendment isn't really valid anymore. The entire reason it existed was cuz Patrick Henry was scared of slave uprisings. That was its purpose.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do you know that? It doesn't say that in the Constitution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Seems Oxford dictionary has taken it upon themselves to become a subscription based service so I can no longer access these historical definitions, but thankfully since this topic has already been exhausted someone else recorded a few on a site they host. These are still on Oxford I'm sure just behind that paywall if you wanna verify.

https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

Why does this lie keep popping up? No it never meant that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

SCotUS has ruled that your relationship with a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is irrelevant to your right to bear arms

edit: clarity

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s wild that “militia” is still considered relevant.

Like, are we really still in a time when your town of 100 settlers might get attacked by Native Americans from the West and the British from the East?

We gonna ring the bell and dole out muskets to every able-bodied man and boy in the village?

Muskets — and ammo, and gunpowder — from the armory, since it was impractical and dangerous to keep that stuff at home?

And lest we forget, these MFers passed ten amendments right off the bat. They thought we’d be ready to change this shit on the fly as the world evolved.

People say they meant for amendments to be difficult to pass. But they really had no idea what the right calibration would be. It was a new thing! And they had just managed to get unanimous buy-in to start the thing. How hard could a 3/4 vote be?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The militias were mainly for putting down slave revolts

[–] njm1314 -3 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

having a constitutional right to carry a weapon does not shield you from responsibility if you misuse that weapon in a way that violates my rights.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] RagingRobot 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's what the insurance is for

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Insurance is for making insurance companies money and nothing more.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] A_Random_Idiot 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Anything can be a weapon with enough effort and intent. Even your teeth. You want to start restricting everything that could possibly be a weapon?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

I mean, as of right now if you use something as a weapon in a way that breaks the law you're civilly liable. the restrictions are already there and always have been.

[–] PoliticalAgitator -1 points 10 months ago

But how will militias hunt escaped slaves without the second amendment?

[–] RaoulDook 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

One is a right that shall not be infringed, and the other one is a state-regulated privilege (at least for operating the machine on public roads).

Very simple to understand actually. You can't put paywalls in front of rights, so this will be dunked right down the shitter if it passes, by the courts.

[–] Fedizen 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

historically the courts have allowed many restrictions to the second amendment, its only modern revisionism thats reinterpreted "well regulated militia" as "literally anyone except felons" and "the right to bear arms" as "gun companies have a right to unrestricted gun sales"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

as “literally anyone except felons”

Oh don't worry, they're revising that part too. They want no limits whatsoever. They want felons to have guns.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It's at least a partial step in the right direction.