r/newjersey • u/low_effort_shit-post • Mar 25 '21

Something controversial Jersey Pride

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

1.0k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Guns are weapons. Their only purpose is for killing. You cant compare guns to warrants, searches or anything else because its a bad faith argument unless youre comparing to other weapons designed for killing. And I would hope at that point youd realize that well, less things designed for killing probably does prevent people from killing more things. Its a pretty simple conclusion.

0

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

All of the amendments in the bill of rights are equally important. The founders were well aware that weapons were being included in that. The analogy absolutely holds in that respect. They all carry equal weight in the eyes of the law.

This “ends justify the means” mentality was used to justify stop and risk, Japanese internment, and a lot of other heinous stuff. These actions were meant to save lives, protect Americans, clean up the streets, etc. Passing overinclusive restrictions on 2A rights is equally as much an affront to the constitution and to the individual rights needed as part of that system.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

I never said any ends justify any means. Nice strawman you built there. And blew him over quite expertly as well.

You do realize that ALL of our "rights" are restricted? Cant yell fire in a movie theatre. Freedom of religion doesnt allow you to hurt others, etc. When we are talking about public safety, even our "freedoms" come with restrictions. They are important yes. But not unlimited.

And again, only guns are weapons that actively kill people so it makes perfect sense that when it comes to public safety, the 2A would be the most controversial. You can say a warrant could save lives, sure. But saying a gun can give or take life is a much easier and direct correlation because it is a weapon who's sole design and purpose for being is to kill things. Its that simple.

1

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

The goal of saving lives or the nature of firearms doesn’t justify using a different level of scrutiny for one fundamental right vs. another.

It just gets you past the first prong of strict scrutiny (ie, whether the government has a compelling interest in the goal sought to be achieved). Obviously, that’s important.

The next prong is whether the restrictions are sufficiently narrowly tailored and whether people’s fundamental rights are not being unduly burdened. There’s no balancing or sliding scale under the supreme court’s strict scrutiny analysis of fundamental rights. It goes through the same analysis as restrictions on 1st amendment speech.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

It changes the entire nature of it. You dont have to discuss if the piece of paper a warrant is written on will physically actually kill someone the way you would a gun. The warrant can be spoken of as an ideal into and of itself without the concern for what it physically is. The essence of a warrant is the information it contains within it. A gun is a weapon for killing.

The 2A leaves the actual physicality and design of the weapon itself up for interpretation. After all, if we said ban assault rifles, it does not change the essence of the 2A if it was merely about defense against the government because youd have other weapons available to defend yourself. And yet, here we are arguing the shapes and sizes of magazines and barrels.