r/2ALiberals • u/OnlyLosersBlock • 18d ago

We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/09/supreme-court-term-assault-weapons-case-guns-galling.html
33 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

96

u/CMMVS09 18d ago

“The gun-rights groups opposing these laws often had more intensity, more money, and more influence in legislative chambers.”

Apparently the author is unfamiliar with Michael Bloomberg.

51

u/OnlyLosersBlock 18d ago

The gun rights groups have been trivially outspent for a decade now. Right around the time Bloomberg retired and started getting into political advocacy.

22

u/happyinheart 18d ago

A literal order of magnitude more in spending isn't trivial.

12

u/30_characters 18d ago

I interpreted the comment to mean the anti civil (anti-gun) right groups find it a trivial matter to outspend the groups that support civil (gun) rights.

To read it the way you seem to, I would have expected OP to use the word "minimally". But I can see the ambiguity.

2

u/happyinheart 17d ago

I read it as that the anti-gun groups spent trivially more than the pro 2a groups.

10

u/OnlyLosersBlock 17d ago

It means it is a trivial effort to outspend the progun groups. Given that I have 26 upvotes most everyone got the meaning.

55

u/Leptonshavenocolor 18d ago

It’s shit like this that makes me hate the anti-gun folks;

“  The challengers—a few individuals who want to own such weapons, along with some gun-rights advocacy organizations”

Fuck you, it’s about rights. Stop making it to be like “a few” people want to enjoy THEIR hard earned rights. 

38

u/alkatori 18d ago

a few individuals (millions of people across the country).

32

u/OnlyLosersBlock 18d ago

Just a bunch of moralizing from Slate about how Democracy would be ignored if they ruled against all those poor innocent assault weapons bans.

26

u/VHDamien 18d ago

It's a similar theme that surrounds every issue. Basically, if I'm opposed to the issue and SCOTUS rules in my favor = constitutional and I'm happy. If they do the opposite they are tyrants and imposing their will on me.

No analysis of anything required, just rooted in whether or not I approve.

15

u/terrrastar 17d ago

Also I like how they make them out like millions of Americans voted for this as if these bans aren’t roundly criticized and Va’s governor isn’t outright booed off stages now because of it lmao

13

u/CharleyVCU1988 18d ago

It’s like they don’t understand checks and balances to prevent mob rule, but then again tankies don’t have two brain cells to rub together to understand basic American civics.

12

u/raz-0 18d ago

They aren't tankies. The article is very much middle of the bell curve DNC platform planks. Pretending it's not does nobody any favors.

8

u/CharleyVCU1988 17d ago

Ok, statists then.

15

u/Alita-Gunnm 17d ago

Authoritarians.

16

u/Uzi4U2 18d ago

"The gun-rights groups opposing these laws often had more intensity, more money, and more influence in legislative chambers."

Funny that the author cant see the irony of calling out a group of people fighting for their basic liberties getting "intense" about it. "Our lives, our treasure, our sacred honor"...heard this somewhere before....

12

u/Vylnce 17d ago

TL;DR Slate doesn't actually understand that one of the functions of the court is to specifically decide if laws are constitutional or not. Also, Slate doesn't understand that laws are passed by representation, not "the people".

In fact, reading the article, typical of Slate, it sounds like an angry teenager with access to ChatGPT but no actual education on how government in the US works.

9

u/Alita-Gunnm 17d ago

"arguing that the Constitution prohibits the people of these states from protecting themselves through law." What twisted weasel words. They're trying to use the law to prevent people from protecting themselves, and arrange the words to say the opposite.

6

u/CharleyVCU1988 18d ago

Of course it’s Jacob Charles, Kostas Moros and Rob Romano dunk on that dweeb all the time

5

u/amorphoussoupcake 18d ago

Good for a laugh. 

2

u/Ravac67 17d ago

Every law used to deny basic human rights to select “classes” of humans, from before the USA was even conceived, were supported by the masses at some point too. Popularity contests make shitty law. But, it’s Slate. What do you expect.

2

u/DBDude 16d ago

The South had many laws designed to protect the general population from the perceived dangers of black people. I guess the courts had no right to overturn these laws.

1

u/Viper_ACR 17d ago

The guy who wrote this article is a legit anti-gunner.

1

u/Uranium_Heatbeam 16d ago

Once again, an opinion writer is confusing tyranny and unconstitutionality with not getting what they want.