Oregon School Shooting - At Least 10 Dead

[windjammer]

Glad I dont live in this weird country

[windjammer]

because of the actions of one man.

It's cute of you to pretend this is the only time anything of this sort has ever happened.

Ok. So it has happened like what, about 70 times in the last few decades? Do the actions of 70 people justify taking the guns away from millions of other Americans.

Your strawman was cute. Try harder.

There have been 70 school shootings in the past 2 years alone.

Of course, the right of an individual to own a firearm outweighs another individual's right to life in all cases. Because a constitutional amendment written by a bunch of paranoid revolutionaries in an era of muskets ought be universally applicable now.

Gun ownership should be a privilege with a high access bar. Not a right.

Ok. That doesn't change a thing about my point.

The right to life does not include the right not to get killed. You don't have a right to not be struck down by lightening. You don't have a right to not get killed in a car wreck. Rights fall flat in the face of acts of God or man or disasters. Your rights won't stop a bullet from tearing through your heart.

Coulda shoulda woulda. Oh well. The Constitution is strict on this matter. There is a right, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, change it. But good luck. We are better funded, more supported, and yes, better armed. So good luck with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

[windjammer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that what Chairmansanchez was saying about the 2nd amendment right, was simply not true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have many justices who simply don't believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear an arm. I quoted this former supreme court to show how much the supreme court's opinion can change about this matter.

In fact, according to this supreme court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
5 supreme court justices agreed that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, meaning 4 supreme court justices disagreed and believed that the gun ban in the district of Columbia was constitutional.

So, if for instance the democrats retake the Supreme Court, any gun restriction would likely be deemed valid.

[windjammer]

Gun nut logic

Not letting 5 year olds drive a car = taking away my freedoms!!!11!!1

I would call this a strawman but as this post demonstrates, I don't think you have the intelligence to understand what a strawman actually is.

Depends, is it a bendy-strawman, or McDonald's style?

McDonalds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that what Chairmansanchez was saying about the 2nd amendment right, was simply not true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have many justices who simply don't believe the 2nd amendment guarantees the right for individuals to bear an arm. I quoted this former supreme court to show how much the supreme court's opinion can change about this matter.

In fact, according to this supreme court decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
5 supreme court justices agreed that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, meaning 4 supreme court justices disagreed and believed that the gun ban in the district of Columbia was constitutional.

So, if for instance the democrats retake the Supreme Court, any gun restriction would likely be deemed valid.

I don't think you get how the SCOTUS works. You put Donald Trump on the Court for God's sake. Four justices disagreed. Five did. And the five who made the majority ruling are the five who count.

A few justices opposed gay marriage. I guess gays don't have equal rights because 4 justices disagree.

 What I mean is that you can"t the constitution is strictly clear on this issue when it isn't 9-0 or 8-1 ruling. Of course, right now any total gun ban would be struck down. But maybe not in the future (especially with 4 supreme court who are really old and will likely retire in the next decade).

My point is that you can't say the constitution is strict on the matter when you have basically 4/9 of the supreme court justices that don't share your point of you.

[windjammer]

From what I understand of the Supreme Court, they dislike striking past decisions down. It makes them look silly.

They allowed segregation in the past, they overturned that as well.
They allowed sodomy laws in the fast, they overturned that as well.