RE: Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?
May 11, 2017 at 8:56 am
Brian - it's a simple fact that there are loads of firearms in the USA. No amount of internet writing will change that.
Deaths from any cause that can be prevented should be a very grave concern for all of us. Nobody is arguing that it's not. You're either misreading or misrepresenting statements.
You're upset because you think there are too many guns. We get it. You think that anyone who tries to engage in civil discussion about it is a RWNJ. You're entitled to that opinion but it is a very narrow view.
There are obvious gaps in your understanding of how firearms are regulated. For some reason you view these facts as an attack on your position. They're not. These are just facts.
You argue that the law needs to evolve. I have pointed out that it does evolve. Legal precedent is how laws and our interpretation of them evolve. It is settled law that the 2A applies to individuals and it is incorporated to the states. This is the law of the land. Yes, it may change, but all future litigation has to consider Heller and McDonald, whether anyone likes it or not.
Then you get personal and position your arguments in absolute terms. If you disagree with Brian you're a blood thirsty irresponsible right wing nutjob who values objects over lives. This sounds like a page out of the SJW playbook. And it's muddling the personal with the facts. It's akin to saying if you're not with Brian, you're against Brian. This is a false dichotomy.
You seem to judge rather than think.
Deaths from any cause that can be prevented should be a very grave concern for all of us. Nobody is arguing that it's not. You're either misreading or misrepresenting statements.
You're upset because you think there are too many guns. We get it. You think that anyone who tries to engage in civil discussion about it is a RWNJ. You're entitled to that opinion but it is a very narrow view.
There are obvious gaps in your understanding of how firearms are regulated. For some reason you view these facts as an attack on your position. They're not. These are just facts.
You argue that the law needs to evolve. I have pointed out that it does evolve. Legal precedent is how laws and our interpretation of them evolve. It is settled law that the 2A applies to individuals and it is incorporated to the states. This is the law of the land. Yes, it may change, but all future litigation has to consider Heller and McDonald, whether anyone likes it or not.
Then you get personal and position your arguments in absolute terms. If you disagree with Brian you're a blood thirsty irresponsible right wing nutjob who values objects over lives. This sounds like a page out of the SJW playbook. And it's muddling the personal with the facts. It's akin to saying if you're not with Brian, you're against Brian. This is a false dichotomy.
You seem to judge rather than think.
