HD, I’m giving you a warning. You should know it’s against the rules to refer to another poster as a ‘troll’ on the SDMB. Please don’t do it again.
Your failure to understand something or agree with my (current) position has exactly zero influence on anything other than your own mind state, as far as I am concerned. I’m quite happy with allowing your current perspectives to keep existing, but I am not interested in sharing them.
Stereotypical liberal response. All the evidence is pointing to the fact that this latest incident was a terrorist attack. So do they talk about the problem of Muslim extremism? Heaven forbid. No, even though California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation they want to talk gun control. Perhaps the sort of total control of guns that France has. They certainly proved effective, didn’t they?
Once again, the real problem here is Muslim extremism.
Admittedly, when someone talks about guns for self-defense, I think “muggers and burglars,” not “wolves and bears.” So, you got me there - I hadn’t considered it from that view point.
Mind, I’m not arguing for banning any more guns, just against the simply dumb idea that owning guns is in anyway comparable with civil rights laws. Civil rights laws protect people from being thrown out of their homes, fired from their jobs, or losing their children because they’re the “wrong” ethnicity/religion/sexual minority. There’s simply no comparable threat to gun owners. If guns were completely banned tomorrow, everywhere, all that would mean for gun owners is they wouldn’t be allowed to practice their hobby anymore. An America without guns would be no less free or prosperous than an America without scrapbooking.
I believe that you believe this, but it is not congruous with the recognition in Heller and McDonald. Guns, specifically, handguns, are how people typically exercise their right to self defense. Without this ability, the weak would be at the mercy of the strong, among other things. The incorporation process used in McDonald recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.
Equating gun ownership to merely a hobby is shortsighted and in error.
Yes, once again. Except last week when it was anti-abortion. And besides the week before when it was just some crazy. And you know, most mass killings in the US.
…which could also be well-characterized as “Christian extremism”.
Don’t know how old you are or where you live…“Smear the queer” was a not uncommon game for groups of young men when I was young. Maybe you know it better as fag bashing. My guess, maybe I am wrong, ,is that you never faced 1st hand getting the life stomped out of you by stronger and/or more numerous foes because of your sexuality. Would you consider possession of the gun more of a vital civil right if it was all that stood between you and being beaten to death for your sexual preference?
Not really, imho. People only want to grab that idea to try and shove GOP talking points back down their throats. I think because they are generally so one issue, anti-abortion terrorist is just fine.
Funny that you think a person who takes responsibility for their self defense into their own hands, who obtains the tools necessary to do so and becomes proficient in using them is engaged in “magical thinking”. While a person who waits around, imploring a bunch of old men to write “no, don’t” on a piece of paper, and believes that that will eliminate all the dangers they might ever face, isn’t.
Do all police officers, soldiers, secret service, etc also engage in “magical thinking”, in your mind? Or does a government job make all the difference in the value of a firearm for self defense?
Lest anyone give this opinion more value than it deserves, please note that the SCOTUS rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were both decided by 5-4 votes. Yes, that’s with the usual GOP/NRA-allied fatuosities (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) voting with the 5.
If it had gone 5-4 the other way, would you say the same thing?
Absolutely not. We would be told that the majority ruled so suck it.
A huge portion of Supreme Court cases these days are split 4-4 until the Court’s “centrist,” Anthony Kennedy, casts the deciding vote.
I’ve no idea what your point is.
My point was that the poster I quoted seemed to celebrate that the intention of Yahweh (or Thomas Jefferson, or the Baby Jesus, or whoever the gun nuts think inscribed the Second Commandment in stone) had finally been Revealed. Instead, we learned the opinion of one man, Arthur Kennedy.
My point is that if the decision had gone the way you wanted it to, you wouldn’t be pissing and moaning about a 5-4 split. More likely, you’d be all “The Court has spoken. Law of the land!”
So…The majority ruled. Suck it.
In other words, you responded to the poster you wanted me to be, someone who’s perspective is orthogonal to my own.
I’ve said over and over that gun rights is not an issue that interests me. I read the gun nuts’ threads just for recreational outrage. (Am I allowed to describe, outside the Pit, the impression that the apparent “thoughts” of pro-gunners leaves?)
1/2 point for not only using the word “orthogonal,” but also spelling it right. If the issue doesn’t interest you, why are you in this thread at all? Further, why are you trying to delegitimize the court’s ruling, based on number of votes, if you have no interest? I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. A fellow who has no interest would be off in a thread about kittens or movies or something that did interest him.
Alternate reality:
Kitten pic thread
Kittylover312: url=pic.com/cutekitty.jpeg
Sep: i am more a dog person but that’s a pretty cute kitty
sumppump: don’t bullshit me. If you weren’t a cat person you’d be posting in some puppy or gun control thread
I’d love to know how you define “huge portion” and “these days”. By my understanding your statement is wrong but I’m sure you can provide support for you statement.
The gay marriage case was also a 5-4 vote. Abortion rights were upheld by a 5-4 vote. Are you saying that Supreme Court cases are only valuable when there are 6 or more votes in the majority?