Not sure why MAS...being a teacher...hasn't posted about the latest mass shooting in Georgia...
...one would also expect this issue to come up in the Harris/Trump debate...so that DJT can again boast of how he made sure there was NO ACTION taken during his Presidency to hinder the NRA, or the spread of Assault Rifles in America.
Link: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/apalachee-high-school-barrow-county-hard-lockdown
Replies to: Not sure why MAS...being a teacher...hasn't posted about the latest mass shooting in Georgia...
I think the more interesting question is why the FBI always has a file on these shooters but
we later learn it did nothing.
Of course when they do something, they are violating someone’s rights for political reasons.
(no message)
You always need some distractions ready to go
(no message)
All you have to do, Cole, is read the article...it appears "due process" was involved...unlike in
autocratic systems you seem to favor.
And then she can explain why she doesn’t want police officers in schools
(no message)
Acceptable casualties. Just more martyrs to the glorious second amendment.
Or at least to their dumbass interpretation of it.
Feel free to propose a workable solution to disarm civilians.
Preferably, one that won't involve Democrat acceptable casualties of innocent people being victimized by criminals or by the government.
No need to disarm them. Target the ammo.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
Yeah, that's working out great in Illinois.
(no message)
After ammo ban, are the deaths of innocent civilians by criminals "acceptable casualties" to you?
I decided to ask this in a separate post, since if I ask 2 questions of you, you have a history of only answering the easiest one, and ignoring the harder one.
Never said there should be a ban
A steep tax would do it. On some kinds of ammo only.
It's not rocket science. And we've been through this over and over.
So, just make it expensive for the poor, but allow the rich to pay the tax? What types of ammo?
We haven't been through this before, because you usually give up before you provide any details.
Expensive for everyone. A massive federal tax.
I'd really feel bad if poor people couldn't afford lots of rounds of ammo.
Yes, people who are determined to commit mass murder are going to decide it's just too expensive.
This is the extreme level of stupidity that alienates normals who would otherwise be sympathetic to your cause.
Two possibilities: "Massive" means (1) effective ban; or, (2) rights are only for the rich.
The former would be unconstitutional. The latter is elitist, but I'm not surprised.
If you're too poor to afford bulk supplies of ammo, then tough shit
(no message)
How many rounds do you think come in a single box of AR ammo?
How many rounds do you think are fired in a typical mass shooting?
He doesn't know which end of a gun is the business end. But he's an expert on all things.
(no message)
Would you ban all hunting ammo?...all self-defense ammo? SCOTUS wouldn't allow that...
...unless you politicize SCOTUS.
Chris, Frank didn't answer for you. Would still like to hear your opinion of a workable ammo ban.
You do know that the AR platform shoots almost every type of ammunition out there, correct?
Uhm Ginni Thomas et al have already politicized it.
(no message)
Not sure what you mean. Regardless, do you think a 100% ammo ban would be constitutional?
I assume you agree that removing the autonomy of SCOTUS by packing the Court by each President is a bad thing for SCOTUS...and the country in the long run? That is what I meant by "politicizing SCOTUS."
Where have I advocated for such a ban and it wouldn’t be constitutional. I do advocate for a binding
code of ethics for SCOTUS but not expanding or contracting the court, although either would be lawful and have been done before. I also disagree with your definition of politicizing the court as to narrow.
You inserted yourself into the ban conversation, so I asked your opinion on it. We agree. Thank you.
Regarding SCOTUS, we have impeachment for misbehavior. That is the only (or should be the only) control put on SCOTUS by another branch of government. If SCOTUS wants to enact a code of ethics for itself, then they should do so.
It is comical to think Congress might impose ethics obligations on SCOTUS such as no trading in stock of a company appearing before them, while Congress reserves the right to insider trade for itself.
Congress does have the power to increase and shrink the court at will, but that is a power that should not be exercised by either party. Once one uses it, the other will, too, and then we no longer have an independent judiciary branch of our government.
Huh? Do you understand Constitutional Law? Congress clearly has the right both to set the size of
the Court and to impose ethical restrictions, both of which it has exercised in the past.
Oh, and my only insertion is that the Court has already politicized itself and it has. Didn’t say anything about bans.
Assault rifles have always been illegal.
It’s a mental health issue, the kid’s and yours.
Are black kids getting shot in urban areas “mass shootings?”
And should we send police to confiscate their guns?
Because the 14 year old shooter is white.
MAS only believes that violent crime is committed by persons of color, and hence, we should be afraid of them.
Since there have been no photos of the shooter published yet, I just assumed he was Black?
That is usually a good leading indicator. How do you know his race?