Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
Wed Sep 19, 2018, 07:32 AM Sep 2018

A federal judge has struck down a law...

...banning handgun ads at gun shops as "unconstitutional on its face" and "highly paternalistic."

California officials had argued that they intended the ban to prevent advertisements from prompting state residents with "impulsive personality traits" to buy more guns, and thereby reduce the risk of "handgun suicide and handgun crime."

...Government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road.

Nunley added that because the law did not seek to protect gun buyers from misleading advertising, it rests "solely on the offensive assumption that the public will respond 'irrationally' to the truth."

Nunley noted: "Indeed, not only is purchasing a handgun from a licensed dealer lawful, it is constitutionally protected."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-on-handgun-ads/2018/09/11/e97a73fc-b621-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c96d79_story.html?utm_term=.f024a14d9ef7

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-handguns/judge-strikes-down-95-year-old-california-ban-on-storefront-handgun-ads-idUSKCN1LS2I5
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A federal judge has struck down a law... (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2018 OP
Children living in a home with their parents is 'paternalistic' angstlessk Sep 2018 #1
Paternalism discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2018 #2
Touche..I was thinking Parent, not pater (father) angstlessk Sep 2018 #3
I hope my reply didn't seem short or hostile discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2018 #4
I didn't take offense, when I'm wrong angstlessk Sep 2018 #5
Okay cool discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2018 #6

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
2. Paternalism
Wed Sep 19, 2018, 07:49 AM
Sep 2018

re: "paternalistic' is a GOOD thing

Sure it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

In society
In the southern United States before the Civil War, paternalism was a concept used to justify the legitimacy of slavery. Women would present themselves as mothers for the slaves, or protectors that provided benefits the slaves would not get on their own. Plantation mistresses would attempt to civilize their workers by providing food, shelter, and affection. These women would justify that the conditions for freed blacks were poorer than those who were under the mistresses' protection. Paternalism was used as an argument against the emancipation of slavery due to these mistresses providing better living conditions than the enslaved's counterpart in the factory-based north. As a result of this conclusion, often the whites would manage basic rights of the enslaved such as child rearing and property.

Paternalism was also used against Women's Suffrage, with opponents of women's suffrage saying that granting women the right to vote would make their lives harder and separate them from their families.

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
3. Touche..I was thinking Parent, not pater (father)
Wed Sep 19, 2018, 08:11 AM
Sep 2018

You, of course are correct, paternalism is another way of suppressing women AND children...thanks for the correction.

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
5. I didn't take offense, when I'm wrong
Thu Sep 20, 2018, 06:32 AM
Sep 2018

I like to let the person who corrected me, know that I appreciate them taking time to edumicate (sic) me

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts)
6. Okay cool
Thu Sep 20, 2018, 06:58 AM
Sep 2018

For me sometimes I say what I think while not remembering to read the preview from the perspective of the person I am replying to. Usually I fail to do that when I'm in a hurry.

It's no worth hurt someone's feelings just to be right. That said, I occasionally make an exception for folks that get insulting but you've been very civil and I am thankful for the discussion.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»A federal judge has struc...