Yeah, it's also harder to shoot a lot people quickly if weapons like AR15 s were not readily available. That's just common sense.
The shadows behind March for our Lives.
- Thread starter fhl
- Start date
Yeah, it's also harder to shoot a lot people quickly if weapons like AR15 s were not readily available. That's just common sense.
I don't buy this gun movement ban/march stuff.
This feels as legit as Oswald and the Kennedy assassination.
The Powers at Be...wants to disarm and weaken the public.
I also believe 9-11 was an inside job.
and essentially every major war had alterior motives, rather then just the good guys vs the bad guys.
internet and cellphone spying, etc etc...All major companies and Governments are doing it.
Everything is viewed as a Chess game...to the rich and powerful,
What's interesting is that I can't tell if you're serious or not. That's how crazy the wing nuts have become.
There are two types of posts here. One type appeals to bias and emotion ; the other to logic and deliberation. Yours is of the first type. You can't support your statement with pertinent evidence or logical argument; you rely on emotion and bias. These "children", as you put it, and young adults, are making the same argument that has been advanced by adults for decades now. It is an argument that has fallen on deaf ears despite its innate logic. The argument is essentially that uniform laws restricting the ownership and purchase of certain types of guns or gun modification in conjunction with universal background checks and waiting periods would, over time, reduce the probability of these types of guns and modifications being used to commit crimes, and in particular mass shootings. That's, prima facie, a sound argument, so long as there is reason to believe probability of an instrument being used is related to its abundance and ease of availability.
What these "children" are doing now that is different from past efforts, is to directly confront politicians who persist in ignoring sound arguments in exchange for campaign contributions from the gun lobby. They have made it their goal to see that these politicians who have remained unresponsive to the majority public will shall not be re-elected . I think they will succeed, and I applaud them for taking an effective and practical approach to the severe problem of gun violence in the United States.
Those who continue to harp on Second Amendment rights have not read D.C. v Heller, or if they have, they are dumb to its most germane opinion* which begins on page 58 of the Scalia text. The Second amendment does not grant the right to own and bear any firearm of one's choosing. That was made clear by Heller and a long history of restricting access to certain types of firearms. These "children" are going to succeed where adults have failed!
_____________________
*Heller's personal victory here, viz., that the District of Columbia's gun laws were too restrictive in that they effectively denied Heller any access at all to a readily operable firearm in is home and thus constituted a violation of his second amendment right, is of secondary importance. What is most germane here is the Court's reaffirmation in Heller that the government my impose restrictions on the types of firearms that may be owned.
Last edited:
They current movement, which is aimed at uniformity of gun laws, and restricting access to particular types of guns, is constantly being mischaracterized as a "gun ban". This will be read illogically and emotionally by some as a total gun ban, subconsciously inserting the word "total", which is not there and not intended. Avoid that. If you are inclined to read something that is not there, then try reading instead "a ban on particular types of firearms that are designed to be suitable for killing large numbers of people quickly and efficiently." Current focus is on specific types of firearms that are not needed for sporting or recreational purposes and represent overkill for self-defense purposes.I don't buy this gun movement ban/march stuff.
This feels as legit as Oswald and the Kennedy assassination.
The Powers at Be...wants to disarm and weaken the public.
I also believe 9-11 was an inside job.
and essentially every major war had alterior motives, rather then just the good guys vs the bad guys.
internet and cellphone spying, etc etc...All major companies and Governments are doing it.
Everything is viewed as a Chess game...to the rich and powerful
Wow. Where to begin.
#1 The reason politicians have run and won on a strong 2nd Amendment stance is...
wait for it...
because that's what the majority of their constituents want.
#2 As to your "uniform laws" theory, if that were true it would have happened already. The reason it hasn't is because the majority of law abiding gun owners KNOWS that is not the end game of "reasonable gun control".
#3 Do you really believe Heller made it to the SC because the plaintiffs wanted to clarify the governments right to restrict the ownership of certain firearms?
On second thought, don't answer that. You've embarrassed yourself enough already.
When Trump put a halt to immigration from 6 countries prone to terrorism, your side said this was a muslim ban.
Guess what? Some dumbass liberal judge agreed and halted the ban.
So your arguments on this are shot to hell.
Boom, drop the mic. She details a dozen reasons how Cruz could have been stopped and wasn't.
Arnie, thank you for responding with other than photos of Nazi youth.
I'll respond to each of your points briefly:
#1 -- this is true in particular house districts. Nationally of course the polls show overwhelming support for tightening gun laws of the types the students are pushing for. National sentiment is up against some effective gerrymandering. The truth is that many members of the NRA are fine with banning certain types of firearms. And these kids are going to galvanize more moderate members of the NRA against the lunatic fringe, which is represented by the NRA leadership. The leadership is nothing more than a lobby for the gun industry. The kids will follow the money and expose the hypocrisy of the leadership.
These "kids" are organizing and going to go into these particular House Districts and make their arguments and try to win over the voters. They only have to win over a few of these districts to get their point across. They will scare the shit out of some of the congressmen from these heavily gerrymandered districts. Enough so, particularly in this midterm year, that they have an excellent chance of turning enough congressional votes to get the action they are asking for.
#2 -- It is clear to most of us that the reason something hasn't happened already is because there is a lot of money on the other side. This has to do with corporate interests and campaign funding, not with majority public sentiment or logic. There is no one, not even Wayne LaPierre, who is going to try and argue that every State having different gun laws, is going to lead to more effective gun control than having uniform laws would. You know yourself that that is self-evident. We don't need a Ph.D. to figure that one out!
#3 -- No, of course not. But a sweeping opinion such as Heller may have consequences that reach beyond the immediate question. The case was fundamentally about Heller's right to own and use an operable firearm for self defense. But the ruling has far reaching consequences. I have studied this Opinion is great detail: Here are its main features: a) gun laws may not be so restrictive that they virtually preclude the use of any firearm one might reasonably own. If you can't use the gun, then effectively your second amendment right has been taken away with respect to that gun. b) The initial clause in the amendment is non-restrictive. A massive amount of argument, arm waving, and reliance on "originalism" went into disposing of the initial clause. Something very interesting to me personally was illustrated by Scalia's disposing of the prefatory clause. And that is how a skillful and imaginative juror can make black and white into gray, and once he gets as far as gray he can go the next step and convert gray to pure white, and presto change-o what was black and white no longer exists. After observing Scalia dispose of the prefratory clause of our Second Amendment, I am convinced that he would have been capable of decreeing that the Sun rises in the West had it suited his purpose. c) The right to own and bear firearms is inalienable. I.E., the Second Amendment is superfluous once the prefatory clause is disposed of. You are born with the right to own and bear firearms. This was argued on the basis of English common law from which our U.S. laws derive. So long as one accepts that English law may serve to clarify what is intended in our own law, Scalia's long winded argument is brilliant and convincing. This, again, heavily depends on Scalia's invoking of "originalism." d) The right to own and bear firearms is NOT an unrestricted right. The government may regulate the kind and type of firearms that may be owned. This opinion is not based on Originalism, but on practicality and precedent, and too, what may have found favor with four other concurring justices. This part of the ruling begins on page 58 and is the part most germane at present. * Had Scalia been silent on this last point he would have left the issue as to regulating types of firearms to precedent. But he choose to speak specifically and clearly to this issue so as to pointedly concur with precedent.
_________________
*Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent is as interesting as Scalia's majority opinion, but less long-winded of course.
Last edited: