Let me just put this to bed so you don't rack up another 10,000 posts of "nuh uh, lol, prove it, lol, show me the evidence, lol". I don't care what you think the chance is, I don't care how you came to your 1-2% chance, you have no point, you've contributed nothing to the thread, and I'm not interested in going back and forth in a 3rd grade manner with you.
Well then let me explain it to you. SCOTUS recieves over 7,000 requests for judicial review and accepts between 75 and 80. So it is a basic math issue. I hope this helps
I know, but I don't like to use it. Censoring people, even for my own benefit, annoys me even more than useless debate. It's easy enough to glide over his posts, as they normally contain nothing that requires thought.
I prefer addressing the problem directly. It does take a little more effort but I find it's usually worth it.
Problem with trolls is they aren't interested in honest debate -- as I'm sure you've noticed. Thus, you just waste your time.
Well that's why I told him it was a waste of time, now when I ignore his "two word+"LOL"" posts, he'll know why. Will it matter, probably not, but like I said, ignoring his lack of content is easy with proper application of the mouse wheel.
Oh I'm not debating him, I simply told him I'm not interested because there's no debate to be had. Some trolls get paid to do what they do, and don't go away.
Yeah but not everyone will. I can still ignore him, and do most of the time. I only responded this time because he tried to engage me, so I figured I'd save everyone from scrolling through 10 pages of constant one liners from him. Anyway let's get back to @OrlandoChuck s thread and how we can stomp on Commie California's fascist tendencies.
Posting a quote from the Giffords Law Center and providing a link to the same does not mean much. Giffords is a gun control organization. If I posted information from the NRA you would take issue. Do you have an actual source of the stats provided on the web site? I believe I counted only 102 cases cited in this report yet it mentions 1,230. I guess they got the info on those 102 cases from somewhere. Do you know of a link where I can read about the other 1128? I find this part of the report very interesting. Another case of the un-gun crowd twisting information. The report indicates it was last updated December 5th 2017 but not everything was updated. The report is correct, in Heller, the Court acknowledged the government’s continuing ability to regulate the possession of guns in sensitive places. It specifically mentions National Parks indicating they would be one of those places. What this report doesn't tell you is that in 2010, less than two years after Heller, Congress approved a law allowing loaded firearms in national parks. I understand the main point of the article is the SCOTUS letting lower court rulings stand. I just find it interesting that it doesn't bother to mention that Congress changed the law. How many other things is the Giffords Law Center not bothering to mention to their followers and readers of their web site?
and Vegas constantly claims he's not a gun banner yet he is clearly supporting the incremental ammo ban in california
In the same sense that this supposed "ton of evidence" as to the effectiveness of certain firearm-related restrictions has been presented by yourself. That is, not at all.
It is not opinion, it is fact that has been confirmed, because the work has been invested to actually do such.
Thus demonstrating that no actual rebuttal is actually possessed, otherwise it would have been presented by now.