03-02-2018, 10:09 PM
(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not a clear right, of course. Only since the extremist Court was put in place by today's regressive party, has the right to bear arms been interpreted as an individual right. This Court was created by the majority of voters who put the extremist party in the White House. It can be overturned by a majority that puts a moderate progressive in the White House instead. Checks and balances.Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.
It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.
As I said to Classic Xer, if the gun advocates wish to contest the right of a store to limit the age at which someone can buy a gun, they can do so.
Meanwhile, many stores and transportation companies are demonstrating that they have a conscience. I hope more of the people who support gun rights will develop one too, if Parkland is indeed a tipping point.
If the gun advocates and gun crazies are right, as they keep insisting, the dedicated mass murderers and other criminals will find a way to get their phallic symbols to assuage their male inadequacy and act out their frustrations at the expense of peoples' lives. And they can still steal some from the owners of the remaining guns, or borrow them from their Mommy's or Daddy's collection. But, making it harder to get these macho substitutes will save some lives.