More red state Idiocy

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”


Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

well, that’s pretty much what you said

if that’s not what you’re saying, then for the third time now, why do you always post about mass shootings wand never show any concern for handgun violence in cities? how many reasons are there, for why you’d ignore a huge problem and obsess over a much smaller
problem? the reason you gave, is that handgun violence really only effects people who live in high crime areas, not average americans.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11.

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

Researchers found 75% of Blacks, 72% of Asians, and 65% of Hispanics say gun laws should be stricter compared to only 45% of white people. The public is also divided on whether an increase in the number of Americans who own guns would result in more or less crime. Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white adults to say if more Americans owned guns there would be more crime. A majority of Black adults (58%) and about half of Hispanic adults (48%) say the same, compared with only a quarter of white adults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device