Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
Oh! My favorite online topic. Let’s make this more fun.
Without reading the comments yet, here’s my guess:
At least one person calls another stupid (got it)
People say other people are wrong instead of having differing views (yep)
There’s arguments about the physical properties of guns like what = assault rifle, how many bullets it holds is too much, or physical size (oddly specific to historical weapons which I don’t see a lot, but yep)
Someone over simplifies a complex idea or problems
Someone says they or their rights are more important than someone elses (got it)
Nah, I’m sure all the comments will be well thought out and articulated, considerate, and inspire reflection instead of eliciting defensiveness…
You forgot to add the one about how someone will arrogantly complain about what people comment without ever intending to discuss the contents of the actual article.
You didn’t comment. You just opined some edgy nonsense on the quality of responses without offering a single discussion point on the topic of the article.
People say other people are wrong instead of having differing views (yep)
Unfortunately the uneducated masses in this country literally cannot recognize statements of fact from statements of opinion, literally cannot recognize evidence when you put it right in front of them.
Someone says they or their rights are more important than someone elses
I mean… this is a simple truth. I have the right to free speech, but I can still be held legally accountable if my words cause actual harm. In such instances, other people’s rights to various things override my right to free speech. (Yes, I’m simplifying. Free speech is just a quick example.)
I agree. I find it difficult for people to acknowledge that all parties of a topic that brings strong opinions have rights.
There’s a balance or compromise needed, but it’s easy to believe one person’s right trumps another’s, but how to determine who’s is more important is a difficult. We usually go with greater good, or personal life experiences.
I think it’s easy to side against firearms for the sake of safety and a greater good. I can’t imagine Americans allowing laws that restrict being allowed to have children though. I imagine most people would say that having children falls into an inalienable right category, but are there instances where people wouldn’t have been allowed to have kids if you had to apply for some kind of license?
Oh! My favorite online topic. Let’s make this more fun.
Without reading the comments yet, here’s my guess:
Nah, I’m sure all the comments will be well thought out and articulated, considerate, and inspire reflection instead of eliciting defensiveness…
Edit: added comments to my list.
You forgot to add the one about how someone will arrogantly complain about what people comment without ever intending to discuss the contents of the actual article.
😉, arrogant…matter of perspective.
I did comment. My sarcasm is an indictment of people’s online discussion conduct. They name call for starters.
You didn’t comment. You just opined some edgy nonsense on the quality of responses without offering a single discussion point on the topic of the article.
Hop back to Reddit with this shit.
Unfortunately the uneducated masses in this country literally cannot recognize statements of fact from statements of opinion, literally cannot recognize evidence when you put it right in front of them.
I mean… this is a simple truth. I have the right to free speech, but I can still be held legally accountable if my words cause actual harm. In such instances, other people’s rights to various things override my right to free speech. (Yes, I’m simplifying. Free speech is just a quick example.)
I agree. I find it difficult for people to acknowledge that all parties of a topic that brings strong opinions have rights.
There’s a balance or compromise needed, but it’s easy to believe one person’s right trumps another’s, but how to determine who’s is more important is a difficult. We usually go with greater good, or personal life experiences.
I think it’s easy to side against firearms for the sake of safety and a greater good. I can’t imagine Americans allowing laws that restrict being allowed to have children though. I imagine most people would say that having children falls into an inalienable right category, but are there instances where people wouldn’t have been allowed to have kids if you had to apply for some kind of license?
Both examples affect safety and human lives.
Merry Christmas
You forgot the one where a rapist’s right to a firearm is more important than their partner’s safety