The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.

The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.

The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 – the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Red iron oxide and aluminum flakes. Fiber optic drone for around 1-1.5k.

    None of that is regulated and I can do far more damage with that than a gun. Give me enough time and I can do better because it’s already being done in other countries like Ukraine.

    You wanna regulate red iron oxide and drones now that I’ve put the spectre of thermite drones into your mind? Oh, sorry — you’re too fixated on the not napalm to realize the point. My mistake.

    • pahlimur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Put the meth down.

      Thermite is only dangerous in very specific situations. You aren’t some scary bad ass because you think you know how to make bombs. Bigger and better explosives are made with other things that get you put on a list for buying to much of.

      Guns need to be regulated is such a broad statement. Its meant to allow dumb people to interpret it however they want. Easy access to guns is objectively stupid.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        What makes you think I’d be using thermite as a bomb?

        Ok, Mr. “I know what I’m doing and you don’t” - I’m not going to continue elaborating on how unregulated materials can easily be used in destructive ways. Apparently someone remotely causing a wildfire in a neighborhood just can’t compare to a crowd getting shot.

        Beyond anything I’ve said, one thing is clear - you’re advocating for a fascist government continuing to seize individual firearms.

        • pahlimur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I dont want firearms to be removed, beyond restricting access. Including logical fallacies is how I single out people with weak ideologies. Weak beliefs always lean on logical fallacies when challenged.

          Move the goalposts again if you wish. Individual harm caused by thermite is relatively limited, even in a war like setting. Lighting a forest on fire doesn’t require thermite. Unless you’re a fuckin idiot or in middle school

          The current administration is too inept to effectively remove firearms. Fascism has always existed in the US, but its more obvious today than in 1940. We don’t win by clinging to guns and pretending they will provide retribution.

          I won’t elaborate on the very basic knowledge I have of explosives because you seem to think knowing about thermite makes you threatening lol.

          • Jax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Moving the goalposts?

            You’re on a post about an AR-15 ban but I’ve somehow moved the goalposts? I’m not wasting my time on this anymore.

            I haven’t actually been threatening anyone. I’m explaining how very easy it is to kill people and the various things that are unregulated that can be used to do so. Why do you feel threatened?

            Almost like you’re a fascist that’s afraid to get shot.

              • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Dude, read the article - this isn’t regulation, it’s a ban.

                Holy shit I’ve been arguing with someone that claims to be able to build bombs but can’t manage to determine the content of an article that’s been paraphrased for them. If you’re basing whether or not guns should be regulated using yourself as a baseline, then god damnit – you got me, I have to agree with you.

                • pahlimur@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Banning some guns is part of regulation, unless you don’t understand how regulation works.

                  My ‘wut’ is about you fundamentally misunderstanding how regulation works. I’m not allowed to drive a semi because I don’t have a class A license. Just like I shouldn’t own an AR-15 to control the local deer population.

                  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Oh, I didn’t realize there was a license you could apply for that would give you the right to use assault weapons!

                    Please, produce it for me so I can get started. I will wait.

                    Edit: 😂😂 I don’t understand how bans work when you’ve conjured up a nonexistent license. Incredible. Wait wait wait, don’t tell me - it’s up to the govt you’ve deemed too inept to handle the licensing?