School shooting in Nashville

[jcpro]

Always interesting that even in a case like this where he can probably back it up, Shapiro defaults to dishonesty and doesn't even mention time stamps.
I know he knows his audience doesn't care about how dishonest he is, but you would think in a situation where he has a narrative he can lean into, he wouldn't fall back on these habits.

Yawn. He's hardly alone noticing it. Twitter is buzzing all over about the misgendering.

 

[dirtydaveiii]

We knew that was coming.
Like I said, this is going to be used as an attack on trans folk to "protect the good innocent Christians" for years, maybe decades.

Fox changed their font on this story to red after it discovered the shooter was trans. Tucker and company are jumping for joy. If the shoe was on the other foot I'm sure fox would be claiming this was a false fag operation

 

[Fun For All]

Another day another school shooting…Greatest Country on Earth! My ass it is!

 

[Valcazar]

Maybe it's what it is.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640495367488774146

California passed gun control laws once Black Panthers started arming themselves, so I'm sure some people who didn't realize how radical the current court majority is (remember, back in the 60s when California did that, the Supreme Court was on the record that the 2nd amendment didn't protect individual gun owner rights) have been thinking that trans people carrying would get some gun control laws passed.

Unfortunately, it is much more likely to just get laws passed to target trans folk given the state of play right now.

 

[krealtarron]

Of course it is. You cannot pass almost any of it without running into the 2nd amendment. And even if, the Supreme Court flips to minority originalist, and it may one day, it will flip right back, eventually, and the game will just continue. On the other hand, once the 2nd is repealed, overturning the repeal is as difficult as the repeal itself, if not harder. You should look around America, these days. The laws on conceal and open carry are actually becoming more and more common.

Why is it an attack on the 2nd amendment? It does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms.

But regardless your position is that it is hopeless and nothing will change. Thats not very helpful.

 

[Valcazar]

They should ban ammunition instead. The 2nd amendment doesn't cover ammunition right?

You can't play word games like that.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that doesn't count.

You have to remember how they work -- decide the outcome you want, then make up a legal analysis to justify it.

You can't look at the text of the law or the amendment or their own rulings or decisions and say "based on this, my argument traps them in logic".

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why." is the only principle they have for these kinds of issues.

So they should just ban AR-15, AK-47 and any other rifle caliber bullets in the open market. They should make it so people can buy it only at gun ranges.

They should also ban all sales of loose gun powder, primers, shells etc or at the very least raise taxes on them significantly, so it becomes prohibitively expensive to prevent people self reloading at home.

They should also institute laws on how many rounds of ammunition of what caliber people can buy in the open market. So you cannot buy 1000 rounds in one go.

And they should institute laws that require a person to submit proof of gun use and safety training, write a written test, practical test (just like a driving test), and a psychological evaluation before they are given a license. I mean we do something like that for driving tests anyway.

I dont think any of these will go against the 2nd amendment.

They are if you pass them.

Why?

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."

 

[jcpro]

Why is it an attack on the 2nd amendment? It does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms.

But regardless your position is that it is hopeless and nothing will change. Thats not very helpful.

It's not hopeless. It needs a bipartisan support. But, Republicans need gun owners as much as the Democrats to get elected. And that's a fact.

 

[krealtarron]

You can't play word games like that.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that doesn't count.

You have to remember how they work -- decide the outcome you want, then make up a legal analysis to justify it.

You can't look at the text of the law or the amendment or their own rulings or decisions and say "based on this, my argument traps them in logic".

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why." is the only principle they have for these kinds of issues.



They are if you pass them.

Why?

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."

Then they are not doing what they are supposed to do, they are just partisans who are using their position to push for a partisan position in the highest court of the country. That is very dangerous.

 

[krealtarron]

It's not hopeless. It needs a bipartisan support. But, Republicans need gun owners as much as the Democrats to get elected. And that's a fact.

There is no hope for Americans lol

 

[Valcazar]

Yawn. He's hardly alone noticing it. Twitter is buzzing all over about the misgendering.

I'm not saying he is wrong.
I am saying he is being dishonest.

As you know, like with any shooting, there have been a bunch of conflicting reports and updates of information.

The shooter was identified as an 18-year old girl in early reports, if you recall.

So if you want to point out the "hypocrisy of them misgendering this person" you point out how even as more information comes out, they are still misgendering the shooter".

Except Shapiro went out of his way to cut the time stamp of the headlines off.

That he does shit like that - edit things to present them out of context to support his position and spin the truth - is standard operating procedure for him.
But he has a story here where (since it does look like people are fucking up all over the place) he doesn't have to do that.

But it is like he can't help himself.

 

[Valcazar]

Fox changed their font on this story to red after it discovered the shooter was trans. Tucker and company are jumping for joy. If the shoe was on the other foot I'm sure fox would be claiming this was a false fag operation

Honestly, it is a shame there is such a hack gap between the two sides.

Using Tucker announcing that trans shooters were threat just three days before there was one to "prove" it was a false flag set up by Tucker and Fox News would be bad because it would further degrade the state of journalism and public discourse, but some small part of me can't help but enjoy the thought of them tasting their own bullshit for once.

 

[jcpro]

You can't play word games like that.
The Supreme Court will simply rule that doesn't count.

You have to remember how they work -- decide the outcome you want, then make up a legal analysis to justify it.

You can't look at the text of the law or the amendment or their own rulings or decisions and say "based on this, my argument traps them in logic".

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why." is the only principle they have for these kinds of issues.



They are if you pass them.

Why?

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."

ROTFLMFAO!! Now you know why they dragged out that lying cunt Dr. Ford and Avenatti and Anita Hill, and why they were so upset with RBG, and why Shumer threatened the Supreme Court, and why the lefty extremists went after Kavanaugh. Asses in seats are kind of important on the USSC.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

I’ve come the conclusion that the GQP are 100% fine with all of these mass shootings. They are accelerationists who want society to collapse so they can take over forcefully and turn the US into a white Christian ethnostate.

 

[Valcazar]

Why is it an attack on the 2nd amendment? It does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms.

But regardless your position is that it is hopeless and nothing will change. Thats not very helpful.

I didn't say nothing would change.
I said that acting like "writing the right law" would get past the Supreme Court because "it does not infringe on a person's right to keep and bear their arms" is being silly and naive.

The court will rule whatever it wants unconstitutional for whatever reason.

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."

You can't legislate past that by clever framing of the law.

You get things passed by getting a majority on the court or putting the court in a situation where the majority thinks it is in their best interests to let the law stand.

Given how insulated the Supreme Court is from any accountability, that's going to be damn hard.

But look, it took the gun lobby 30-40 years to get the court to change its mind and say that there was an individual right to bear arms. (If you date the real push for that with the rise of that kind of rhetoric after the civil rights movement). So yes, getting it undone might take 30-40 years. I'd like to think it would be less, but passing laws that work within the "legal language" the Court is pretending their decision concerns is only useful to raise support from the public for things that sound like common sense that the court strikes down anyway.

So go ahead and do it, sure, but pretending it will work because it doesn't conflict with the "plain reading of the text" or whatever is just silly.

 

[krealtarron]

I didn't say nothing would change.
I said that acting like "writing the right law" would get past the Supreme Court because "it does not infringe on a person's right to keep and bear their arms" is being silly and naive.

The court will rule whatever it wants unconstitutional for whatever reason.

"We have five votes, fuck you, that's why."

You can't legislate past that by clever framing of the law.

You get things passed by getting a majority on the court or putting the court in a situation where the majority thinks it is in their best interests to let the law stand.

Given how insulated the Supreme Court is from any accountability, that's going to be damn hard.

But look, it took the gun lobby 30-40 years to get the court to change its mind and say that there was an individual right to bear arms. (If you date the real push for that with the rise of that kind of rhetoric after the civil rights movement). So yes, getting it undone might take 30-40 years. I'd like to think it would be less, but passing laws that work within the "legal language" the Court is pretending their decision concerns is only useful to raise support from the public for things that sound like common sense that the court strikes down anyway.

So go ahead and do it, sure, but pretending it will work because it doesn't conflict with the "plain reading of the text" or whatever is just silly.

I was responding to JC. But I agree. As I said, its not how the judicial system is supposed to work though.

 

[Valcazar]

Then they are not doing what they are supposed to do, they are just partisans who are using their position to push for a partisan position in the highest court of the country. That is very dangerous.

Yes.
Exactly this.

That it has taken as long as it has for the public (and much of the pres and also the non-Republican establishment) to understand this has been tragic.

There is a reason the Supreme Court Six are so mad about the declining view of the Court.
They thought they should be allowed to be complete fucking partisan hacks and keep all the respect they had under the cover of "the institution".

But legitimacy is earned in a democracy, not bestowed.
They want to piss it away, it will get pissed away.

 

[Fun For All]

2nd Amendment…Guns for everyone…what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Valcazar]

I’ve come the conclusion that the GQP are 100% fine with all of these mass shootings. They are accelerationists who want society to collapse so they can take over forcefully and turn the US into a white Christian ethnostate.

There is an argument to be made that if they feel on balance that the shootings threaten their voters more than is acceptable, they might move on gun reform.
(See Black Panthers got guns, so then you pass gun laws.)

But generalized fear of society fraying is mostly good for them, so unless they feel personally targeted, I don't expect them to move on the issue.

 

[Valcazar]

I was responding to JC. But I agree. As I said, its not how the judicial system is supposed to work though.

Sure, but you're a libertarian, right?

"They have the power, so they are going to use it badly" should be expected behavior from the State for you.

 

[oil&gas]

2nd Amendment…Guns for everyone…what could possibly go wrong?

What is wrong is that those guns can be machine guns. It would
still be wrong but at least not as deadly if gun ownership is confined
to pistols and hunting rifles.