They make *what* for kids!?

[Mavorpen]

When you really think about it, his statement allows you to basically argue anything as long as an expert believes it.

Climate Change is bullshit? Of course! Just search for a certified climate scientist who says so and you automatically win!

Beyond that, I haven't had a particularly compelling reason why John Roberts is particularly more of an expert on the subject than I am. He's older, and he's had more experience I suppose, but I don't see necessarily why his views on the constitution are necessarily any better than my own.

he's in the position to better effectuate his views, that's true, but I still don't see why his wisdom is supposedly so much better than mine as a simple de facto matter.

He wasn't insane enough to join NationStates.

That's the deciding factor. *nods*

[Neo Art]

Beyond that, I haven't had a particularly compelling reason why John Roberts is particularly more of an expert on the subject than I am. He's older, and he's had more experience I suppose, but I don't see necessarily why his views on the constitution are necessarily any better than my own.

he's in the position to better effectuate his views, that's true, but I still don't see why his wisdom is supposedly so much better than mine as a simple de facto matter.

He wasn't insane enough to join NationStates.

That's the deciding factor. *nods*

....you may have a point here.

[Sociobiology]

because I am an authority in several fields of science, in ones I am not especially in a highly technical matter I will use the authority of other scientists.
For instance I will accept what physicists tell me about the implications of the hydrogen and helium balance of the universe, because I don't know enough about the subject.

You realize, I hope, why I find comments like this DEEPLY ironic in threads like these, yes?

No because law unlike science is not empirical.

A scientist can be proven wrong, the supreme court cannot be proven wrong in matters of law, it can only be convinced to change its mind.

[Mavorpen]

You realize, I hope, why I find comments like this DEEPLY ironic in threads like these, yes?

No because law unlike science is not empirical.

You... I don't think you understood what he was saying.

[United Dependencies]

No because law unlike science is not empirical.

My general impression of the justice system is that it tries to make decisions based on the facts. Sometimes the facts can be a little murky.

[Sociobiology]

No because law unlike science is not empirical.

My general impression of the justice system is that it tries to make decisions based on the facts. Sometimes the facts can be a little murky.

no it tries to take facts into account, but it is not based on facts but on societal constructs.
rights and laws do not actually exist except as patterns in human behavior.
law is opinion.
we can argue about the justness of the law not what IS the law.

[Gun Manufacturers]

But they revoked the decision.

Thus proving they aren't infallible...

The Supreme Court that made that decision is also dead (the case occurred about 156 years ago in 1857), so them being fallible is irrelevant. Let's see your precedent that THIS Supreme Court made a mistake in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

[New Populist Republik]

I shot guns quite a bit when I was young, but they were also locked away in a safe when they weren't being used and it was made very clear that I would get my ass kicked if I so much as went near them without my father around. I don't know of any gun control law that would stop this kind of thing from happening. All we can really do is start cracking down hard on irresponsible gun owners, and making sentencing much harsher on anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

He wasn't insane enough to join NationStates.

That's the deciding factor. *nods*

....you may have a point here.

I'll testify on your behalf at your Senate Confirmation Hearing.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Thus proving they aren't infallible...

The Supreme Court that made that decision is also dead (the case occurred about 156 years ago in 1857), so them being fallible is irrelevant. Let's see your precedent that THIS Supreme Court made a mistake in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Read this, it supports most of what I've been saying.

[Gun Manufacturers]

See, the thing is, the Supreme Court as far as I know used to consistently rule that the individual right to privately own a firearm wasn't in the Second Amendment. Rather, it protected the right for the States to maintain militias and the individual right to own arms in the context of the militia/military.

And I don't recall the Continental Army using AR-15s.

I don't remember the Continental Congress having access to Twitter, either.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.

You should be disgusted with yourself. Black people are people.

Keep it up, and I'm going to sick a herd of cows on that strawman you're dragging about.

[Gun Manufacturers]

.... They always interpreted the Amendment to protecting the State's right to maintain a militia and for individuals to own weapons in the context of that militia/military. They never applied it to private ownership of guns before Heller.

its ok to be anti gun. but do so honestly, work to repeal the admendment.

That would be fantastic.

Which is it? Is it for individuals to own weapons, or did they never apply it to private ownership?

[Mavorpen]

.... They always interpreted the Amendment to protecting the State's right to maintain a militia and for individuals to own weapons in the context of that militia/military. They never applied it to private ownership of guns before Heller.

That would be fantastic.

Which is it? Is it for individuals to own weapons, or did they never apply it to private ownership?

Could you read through the entire thread before you cherry pick posts out of context and ask questions that have already been answered?

Thanks.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Also awfully convenient that they referred to it being a right of the "people", which, in every other use in the constitution refers to all people recognized as people for legal purposes as interpreted in the law of the land at the time.

Convenient, that.

There's an urgent need for some refurbishment in the constitution.

There's an established method for doing just that, but it's purposely difficult to change.

[Gun Manufacturers]

This incident actually sparked a really interesting discussion between my wife and I about any potential kids we might produce.

I fully intend to teach my kids how to do, at least at a basic level, everything I know how to do proficiently. That includes driving, flying, shooting, fixing computers, understanding taxes, and so on.

Now, that raises the question: when do I teach the kid how to shoot?

I thought 8-10, based on maturity (my conservative american masturbating gun-nut ass). She (her liberal european pinko-commie ass) said 6-10 based on maturity.

Both of us agree that 5 is too young. I'm just curious what other people think is an appropriate age to begin teaching a child how to shoot.

Split the difference, and go with 7 years old.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

You should be disgusted with yourself. Black people are people.

Keep it up, and I'm going to sick a herd of cows on that strawman you're dragging about.

...
You don't know what a systems is, do you?

[Thoricia]

This incident actually sparked a really interesting discussion between my wife and I about any potential kids we might produce.

I fully intend to teach my kids how to do, at least at a basic level, everything I know how to do proficiently. That includes driving, flying, shooting, fixing computers, understanding taxes, and so on.

Now, that raises the question: when do I teach the kid how to shoot?

I thought 8-10, based on maturity (my conservative american masturbating gun-nut ass). She (her liberal european pinko-commie ass) said 6-10 based on maturity.

Both of us agree that 5 is too young. I'm just curious what other people think is an appropriate age to begin teaching a child how to shoot.

Split the difference, and go with 7 years old.

I was six when my dad started teaching me how to shoot his break action single shot .22 Stevens and I turned out ok.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The funny thing is, that would be considered an "assault weapon" in Connecticut. It's stupid, but that's what you get when people that have no clue about firearms write legislation banning certain firearms features.

Really?

... that thing looks fucking useless in a firefight.

The law was written by hoplophobes with no knowledge of what they were banning (just a need to pass "anything" in response to Sandy Hook), what do you expect. BTW, did you know under this new law, my 10/22 could be configured as an "assault weapon" as well? Or semi auto hunting shotguns such as the Remington 11-87? My Glock 17C could be considered one, if I got an aftermarket barrel threaded for a recoil compensator/sound suppressor.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Split the difference, and go with 7 years old.

I was six when my dad started teaching me how to shoot his break action single shot .22 Stevens and I turned out ok.

I was eight when my step-father taught me how to shoot his guns including his AR-15. Look how I turned out.

[Mavorpen]

I was six when my dad started teaching me how to shoot his break action single shot .22 Stevens and I turned out ok.

I was eight when my step-father taught me how to shoot his guns including his AR-15. Look how I turned out.

...We must ban guns now.

[Thoricia]

I was six when my dad started teaching me how to shoot his break action single shot .22 Stevens and I turned out ok.

I was eight when my step-father taught me how to shoot his guns including his AR-15. Look how I turned out.

Hmm your right maybe we shouldn't point that out.

[Gauthier]

I was eight when my step-father taught me how to shoot his guns including his AR-15. Look how I turned out.

...We must ban guns now.

That testimony alone is enough to classify guns as Schedule 1 substances.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I was eight when my step-father taught me how to shoot his guns including his AR-15. Look how I turned out.

...We must ban guns now.

Perhaps I should have kept that to myself.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

...We must ban guns now.

That testimony alone is enough to classify guns as Schedule 1 substances.

In my defense, I have never been convicted of shooting anyone in a court of law.