re: Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15s

quote:

---

the supreme court isn't banning ar-15's. errbody settle down

---

Correct. There aren’t enough of you people on the court to do it. Otherwise, it would have been done long ago.

which ar-15,

this one

Or this one:

Or this one:

quote:

---

Tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.

---

Appeal to emotion is the only way Progressives can maneuver.

I'm sure the parents of Sandy Hook victims were wishing the shooter had used a shotgun or handgun.

quote:

---

I would argue that we need to look for the connections present in the majority of the shootings instead of focusing on the “high profile” ones.

Tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook victims.

Oh yeah, you probably believe they are paid actors.

---

You specifically brought up statistics that undercut the point you were making. I then went through and asked questions about the 80 mass shootings you referenced. Rather than forming any type of hypothesis that could be supported with verifiable data, you decided instead to go for an emotional appeal that I in no way argued against followed by an unwarranted ad hominem attack (with a degree of straw man thrown in for good measure).

Personally, I feel that Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy perpetrated by a mentally broken individual. I in no way felt the parents were actors, and was heartbroken for their losses. At the same time, I do not think it was in any way the gun’s fault, and think current events in Europe and China with mass stabbings show that the base level human condition is violence, and I want to have every measure available to protect myself and my family from those that would do us harm.

Now I will not insult your intelligence or resort to name calling, but I would encourage you to dig deeper into the statistics that you brought to the board. Really tease it out and group the events by any and every metric you can think to do. Avoid trying to confirm your own hypothesis, instead let the data reveal truths that you (or anyone else for that matter) may find uncomfortable.


That’s probably too deep for a message board post, but I had some time and felt like getting into my scientific philosophy bag.

quote:

---

So the founding fathers wrote and amendment stating plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, with the intent of the federal government infringing on that right without amending the Constitution? Got a source for that one?

---

The same people wrote that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

And yet Congress has passed laws abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press


Have you read the Federalist Papers and the letters accompanying the Bill of Rights? Because it seems like you haven’t. The same people wrote these documents. Textual absolutism is antithetical to everything they created.

The language they used was specifically designed to last beyond the confines of their own current political reality. That is what makes the constitution such an incredible document.

quote:

---

The same people wrote that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

---

As if the fact that tyrants, both robed and elected, have allowed themselves the power to violate the Constitution, says one thing about the founding fathers or their intent.

quote:

---

Have you read the Federalist Papers and the letters accompanying the Bill of Rights? Because it seems like you haven’t. The same people wrote these documents. Textual absolutism is antithetical to everything they created.

---

I have, and disagree. I believe they provided several ways to change the law of the land. Most of those ways have been abandoned in favor of controlling or otherwise coercing corrupt lawyers and judges to do the bidding of other powerful and corrupt people. Nothing I have read showed an expectation that the government would and could violate the stated rights and liberties in the Constitution.

quote:

---

The language they used was specifically designed to last beyond the confines of their own current political reality. That is what makes the constitution such an incredible document.

---

You left out the important part. It was designed to last as written and intended, and flexible enough to be changed only under a certain set of rules. Corruption is what has allowed it to be changed and violated outside of their instructions.

I fully support the second amendment but after so many incidents with these guns, I don’t care if they get banned. It’s a completely unnecessary gun for a civilian to own. But on the flip side it’s not like someone who wants to shoot up something won’t just use another gun, so that’s why I just kind of don’t care either way. We need to invest more in mental health than trying to get rid of ways people can protect themselves from these psychos.

quote:

---

I fully support the second amendment but after so many incidents with these guns, I don’t care if they get banned. It’s a completely unnecessary gun for a civilian to own.

---

Well then you don’t fully support the 2nd amendment. Just because you’re ignorant doesn’t mean you get to take things from law abiding citizens.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

quote:

---

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

---

Does. Not. Apply. Here.

And you called me ignorant.

quote:

---

Well then you don’t fully support the 2nd amendment.

---

There’s also nothing in the second amendment that says you have a right to own an AR-15. You have a right to bear arms. The government decides which arms are acceptable for citizens to own. If the same gun is showing up in mass shootings, then it’s within their right to ban it. Also, for a group that supports TACO wiping his arse with the constitution, y’all are really particular on this one.