- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 20,692
- Reaction score
- 11,234
- Location
- VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Two wrongs don't a make a right.
Correct and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Two wrongs don't a make a right.
Maybe if you are so obsessed with an inanimate object that you are willing to viciously attack kids who just survived a school shooting because they don’t agree with you, you should take a long hard look at yourself. Because, frankly, everyone else is.
You inspired me to write hacks. Thanks.
So it’s cool to be a massive asshole to people just because they advocate for what they believe in?
I disagree with the kids too, but that is so muchnot the right response. It’s not like Dinesh is making any argument with those tweets, he’s just being a dick. IMO people going out of their way to be a dick should be condemned normally, (though not illegal or anything like that), but especially going out of your way to be a dick to kids who just went through a school shooting.
This beside the fact that the only effect those tweets could have is to hurt his cause.
The previous case was pre Heller
I wasn’t condoning what Dinesh said only pointing out that the kids don’t get to be immune from criticism
Aw, what is wrong? Can not take any dissent?
An adult (supposedly) mocking some kids that just went through some terrible ****, is not dissent. It's disgusting.
Maybe the kids shouldn’t have put themselves in the political spotlight by using a tragedy to advocate taking away rights from people
Well, of course it would be. That I'm aware of. And while I haven't read Heller in a while, I've used it and McDonald in briefs in gun cases (to defend gun rights, believe it or not).
I'm not about to dig through the 70ish pages right now, but I am certain that they preserved the "military-style weapons"/"unusual and dangerous" weapons exception, as well as other ones, and identified self-defense as the core of the 2nd Amd. So to the extent any argument about constitutionality of bans like this one comes up in the future, the main lense it's going to be looked at is through the relation of the need to the possession of the weapon in question to the ability to enjoy the core right of self-defense.
I don't want to derail the thread, but I do suspect that they may be dubious about whether banning something like a semi-automatic AR-15 is going to seriously impede someone's right to defend themselves when they can have all the handguns and shotguns they want.
(And isn't a handgun recommended for public self-defense while a shotgun or two for home-defense?)
I wasn’t condoning what Dinesh said only pointing out that the kids don’t get to be immune from criticism
Why does that matter. It’s faulty logic, an appeal to emotion. They don’t get a free pass to spew facist rhetoric because they survived a horrible event.
Heller talks about unusual weapons. I think the main part of why an AWB doesn’t stand up in court is that it’s based mostly on cosmetic attributes and the govt will have to show a compelling interest now that the RKBA is confirmed by the court
Talk about back-tracking. I'll stick with your original words:
And that is condoning it no matter how you may want to spin it now. He tweeted a picture of them crying as the ban gets shot down and you defended the mockery.
This has nothing to do with dissent or debate. D'Souza's move was simply soulless and had nothing to do with gun control debates.
No I defended his ability to criticize not how he did it. Which is why I clarified my position but apparently you know my mind better than me.
Maybe the kids shouldn’t have put themselves in the political spotlight by using a tragedy to advocate taking away rights from people
Yeah, I do remember the assault weapons ban being something about having two out of a list of mods, and it really didn't make sense. But that doesn't mean they're all going to be like that.
I don't see anything about "ability to criticize" in this:
Nobody said he doesn't have the right to do so and nobody said he wasn't physically able to do so (not sure what else is supposed to fit under "ability"). They said he was a piece of **** for doing so. Two different things.
While I agree he is an ass, Dinesh has as much right to comment on those kids protests as they have the right to protest
Aw, what is wrong? Can not take any dissent?
Well it seems to be the prevailing sentiment that these kids shouldn’t be criticized on thier political positions. Dinesh is a jerk but anytime you advocate taking away rights people usually treat you like a jerk. I mean it’s twitter, no one is there for a civil and thoughtful discussion.
Well it seems to be the prevailing sentiment that these kids shouldn’t be criticized on thier political positions. Dinesh is a jerk but anytime you advocate taking away rights people usually treat you like a jerk. I mean it’s twitter, no one is there for a civil and thoughtful discussion.
Well they all look end up look like that because there is no real way to do it without banning all semi automatic weapons. Just look at the one Diane Feinstein introduced last year
If these kids want to get into the mud, don't complain if they get dirty.
They're not dirty. And participating in the political process using their Constitutional right to free speech isn't "getting into the mud" just because you disagree with the policies they're advocating.
Is that what you took away or is this just purposeful stupidity on par with Souza'sAw, what is wrong? Can not take any dissent?
What an utterly stupid thing to say. Not unexpected though...If these kids want to get into the mud, don't complain if they get dirty.
Give me a break. Everyone who makes statements to the media end up in the mud. Doesn't matter if its Trump, a Congressman, or some activist spouting off. You will ALWAYS end up with someone tweeting crap about them. It comes with the territory.
These kids are not exempt.