15 replies to this topic

[cybermgk]

Beyond the ranting of the end of freedom, women's right, milk souring and every other evil they can come up with to throw at Judge Kavanaugh, they have also been ranting about the fact that he is very pro 2A. 

 

But, in that last subject, they are letting slip an inherent truth in their ranting.  Schumar, among others have ranted, "say goodbye to any chance for 'common sense gun laws'". 

 

Let's look at that for a moment.  If someone fears that a SCOTUS that adheres to the Constitution, it's meaning, what it's intentions are, would rule against their 'common sense gun law', then they intrinsically know, their 'common sense gun law' is unconstitutional.

 

And, by saying the above rant, they are admitting that they know they are trying to bypass the Constitution and create unconstitutional laws.

 

Now, will John and Jane Q Public hear this?   

[THE KING]

NOPE, The normal everyday person that watches the MSM, believes what they hear.

[cybermgk]

NOPE, The normal everyday person that watches the MSM, believes what they hear.

All the more reason that someone(s) with a national ear, should point this out imho.

[drumgod]

And, by saying the above rant, they are admitting that they know they are trying to bypass the Constitution and create unconstitutional laws.

 

I have said as much more than once on this site. The antis want guns gone, period. They know exactly what the 2A represents. Since it would be next to impossible to change it they try to reinterpret it to justify their actions.

[Euler]

I even take issue with the term "common sense" when it comes to legislation, for two reasons.

First, "common sense" sounds like it's appealing to reason, but it's usually not. Lots of people on both sides of a lot of issues use the phrase "common sense" when they actually don't have a rational argument to support their position. They make an unsupported ideological assertion and just say "It's common sense," which, without a rational argument, really means it's an emotional appeal.

I also see the opposite on Internet forums quite a bit, too. If someone presents a logical, fact-based argument for some position, someone else asserts "That doesn't make any sense," but then fails to describe how, even qualitatively, the logic of the position fails. "Sensibility" in modern terms appears to have become "agreement," so "That doesn't make sense" really just means "I disagree with you, and I don't have to say why," while "It's common sense" means "Everyone must agree with me, and I don't have to say why."

Second, I never want to have "common sense" laws, especially ones that suspend civil liberties. In a constitutional democracy, laws are subject to varying levels of judicial scrutiny based on their scope and effect. The least strict review of a law is called "rational basis," because there's a federal law that specifies no law, even state and local law, should be arbitrary or capricious. The law has to have some rational basis, even an unsupported ideological assertion. That's why a lot of anti-2As want only rational basis review of anti-gun laws.

The next level, medium scrutiny, requires that there actually has to be some factual evidence to support that the law is effective at achieving its stated goal. The highest level, strict scrutiny, requires that the law is narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court has said that any law which attempts to limit constitutionally guaranteed rights must automatically invoke strict scrutiny. I believe it was Scalia that said that, if the only thing required to suspend a constitutionally protected civil liberty is a good reason, then the constitutional protection of that civil liberty is meaningless.

So I never want common sense gun laws. I want any guns laws to meet a higher standard.

[GTX63]

He is admitting that, or pointing out, that judges are out of balance in our current system. He no longer expects congress to do what they were created for as the courts fill that purpose now.

[mic6010]

I saw some idiot in a comment section the other day preaching that 80% of Americans want "common sense" gun laws.  And it was the top comment in that conversation.

 

But of course when you push them to define what "common sense" means you find that nobody can agree on what constitutes "common sense" or what that even means.

 

Its just a really good tag line that at most has 50% approval for anyone whose a leftist.

[BigJim]

I heard one talking head say Kavanaugh is a extremist gun nut that wants people to be allowed to carry AR-15s in public and wants to go back to the days of shootouts in the streets etc..

[Jeffrey]

I saw some idiot in a comment section the other day preaching that 80% of Americans want "common sense" gun laws.  And it was the top comment in that conversation.

 

But of course when you push them to define what "common sense" means you find that nobody can agree on what constitutes "common sense" or what that even means.

 

Its just a really good tag line that at most has 50% approval for anyone whose a leftist.

Any type of response you want, you can find if you look hard enough.  I heard on radio news yesterday a talking head say the Republicans just want to legislate from the bench yet that is exactly how we got Obummercare.

[cybermgk]

I saw some idiot in a comment section the other day preaching that 80% of Americans want "common sense" gun laws.  And it was the top comment in that conversation.

 

But of course when you push them to define what "common sense" means you find that nobody can agree on what constitutes "common sense" or what that even means.

 

Its just a really good tag line that at most has 50% approval for anyone whose a leftist.

That stat comes from polls that ask questions like "If a common sense gun law was passed that would reduce school shootings would you be for it?".  Most say yes, nd the ones against it, know the question for what it is and answer negatively.

[Euler]

I saw some idiot in a comment section the other day preaching that 80% of Americans want "common sense" gun laws.  And it was the top comment in that conversation.

That stat comes from polls that ask questions like "If a common sense gun law was passed that would reduce school shootings would you be for it?".  Most say yes, nd the ones against it, know the question for what it is and answer negatively.

A more seemingly-specific one is "Do you think it should be illegal for people with a history of convictions for violent crimes such as rape and murder to buy handguns?"
If you answer "Yes," you have just contributed to the statistic that a majority of people support strong gun control legislation.
And what sane person would answer "No" to that question?

Unbiased polling organizations exist, but most "polls" aren't anything of the sort. Some are data brokers trying to collect your private information, although that's a whole other problem. Many are marketing organizations who try to influence you through slanted questions rather than to collect your opinion. When they tell you what organization they represent, if you don't recognize it, just assume it's a scam. Even if you do recognize it, it could be a lie.

[C0untZer0]

Hearing Dick Durbin grill judicial nominees makes my blood boil.

 

It is obvious that Durbin has no idea what the role of a senator is, and its obvious that he has nothing but disdain for the United States Constitution.  He is a haughty tyrant, and his arrogant attitude is never clearer than when he's talking down to judicial nominees.

[C0untZer0]

There is no doubt in my mind that democrats apply a religious litmus test to candidates now - expressly unconstitutional. 

 

I expect Durbin 's hatred of the constitution will be on full display as usual. 

 

[cybermgk]

 

 

I saw some idiot in a comment section the other day preaching that 80% of Americans want "common sense" gun laws.  And it was the top comment in that conversation.

That stat comes from polls that ask questions like "If a common sense gun law was passed that would reduce school shootings would you be for it?".  Most say yes, nd the ones against it, know the question for what it is and answer negatively.

 

A more seemingly-specific one is "Do you think it should be illegal for people with a history of convictions for violent crimes such as rape and murder to buy handguns?"
If you answer "Yes," you have just contributed to the statistic that a majority of people support strong gun control legislation.
And what sane person would answer "No" to that question?

Unbiased polling organizations exist, but most "polls" aren't anything of the sort. Some are data brokers trying to collect your private information, although that's a whole other problem. Many are marketing organizations who try to influence you through slanted questions rather than to collect your opinion. When they tell you what organization they represent, if you don't recognize it, just assume it's a scam. Even if you do recognize it, it could be a lie.

 

I'd say a good many pollsters are PAC based as well.

[MrTriple]

But, in that last subject, they are letting slip an inherent truth in their ranting.  Schumar, among others have ranted, "say goodbye to any chance for 'common sense gun laws'".

It's something they've always known, but they were hoping that they could get away with torturing the Heller decision into meaninglessness.
 

Let's look at that for a moment.  If someone fears that a SCOTUS that adheres to the Constitution, it's meaning, what it's intentions are, would rule against their 'common sense gun law', then they intrinsically know, their 'common sense gun law' is unconstitutional.

Correct. The laws they want are, despite their claims to the contrary, what's truly outside the norm.
 

And, by saying the above rant, they are admitting that they know they are trying to bypass the Constitution and create unconstitutional laws.

Hence their push to repeal the second amendment. That's them admitting they've lost on the gun issue.
 

Now, will John and Jane Q Public hear this?

They already have. Most states have scaled back on gun control, not pushed for more. John and Jane have had enough of the gun control movement.

[JTHunter]

If "Tricky Dicky" Durbin IS a Catholic as he claims, how does he resolve the dichotomy of his "faith" and his politics, considering how the dims are so "pro-abortion"???