>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

Whataboutisms all you got, why can't you admit it was disgraceful and petty and sullied the event?

 

You'd like to go back 30 years because what we had back then was better than what we have now? I don't think so.

 

I hear Ginsburg sat up in her coffin and booed, too.

 

So, how would you describe the voting process?

 

Oh, puh-leeze.

 

30 years? Probably not, but 35 years, definitely!

 

Seems you choose to be as petty and disrespectful as the arse's that were there.

 

How was your vote for you state electors not democratic?

 

In your state, not national or federal. Are you a citizen here? Did you ever take civics classes this is pretty basic stuff you know.

 

I'm petty and disrespectful because I said I heard Ginsburg sat up and booed? Did I go there and boo? Nope. Where's the disrespect?

I might stop laughing if I could ever recall you criticizing Trump for disgracing his office with "petty and disrespectful" comments.

 

If what people are doing when they vote isn't exercising their democratic rights, what are they doing?

I've taught history. You're skating around the issue.

 

I dunno. I think gun owners have it about as good as it's going to get.

 

For whatever reason, Democrats and liberals seem to be, almost to a man, ignorant of the fact that all elections are state elections.

 

In some ways it's better. In other ways it's worse, but I'm optimistic that in the near future it's going to improve more from where we're at today. Earlier this year, SCOTUS rejected a slew of RKBA cases. I suspect they'll hear more of those challenges in the future.

TL;DR = I suspect you're wrong about the "about as good as it's going to get" part. As President Trump says, "The best is yet to come."

 

Correct.
The 4 most conservative justices are worried about Roberts. Replacing Ginsburg with a justice who is just as conservative as those four will nullify any possible Roberts defection.
Never mind that Roberts voted in the majority for both Heller and McDonald

 

Ummmmmmm...............

 

There’s no question the number of “legal” households admitting to ownership is decreasing. I know scores of households with multiple firearms and none will answer yes to a survey on the issue.

I prefer data that doesn’t come from biased sources. You may want to check this out. Looks pretty steady to me. Interesting drop from 2018 to 2019 likely for the reason I presented above.

Pretty colors and I’m thankful right to carry has expanded. But I don’t have an inner authoritarian inside me that prevents me from noticing red flag laws, mag capacity laws, and people going to jail for accidentally crossing a state line with a firearm.

I keep tabs on a few FFL’s and they report 90% of business this year has been sales to new gun owners. It will be interesting to see how those statistics settle out.

 

Do you know what the definition of 'plurality' is?

 

The public isn't with gun rights being expanded. What you're talking about is counting on SCOTUS defending gun rights. Better to look at winning the public to your views.

 

No more irrelevant than your statement on the EC.

Already addressed. The reason is so our country can exist. Our founders had varying opinions on how the executive should be chosen. A compromise was reached so the country could be formed. Still today, no EC, no United States. You can get in the weeds with slavery, etc., etc., but even though the underlying contentions of the day and majority and minority demographics come and go, the last remaining vestiges of safety from pure democracy are what makes a Union of heterogeneous states possible.

In what universe is being opposed to something telling people what to do?

Well, that’s some odd logic. Lecturing me for “lecturing” someone with no skin in the game. And what I actually did is ask a question and give opportunity for someone to explain why their opinion on something they don’t have experience with matters. I find it amusing that you are hung up on messing in other’s business and make that known by......sticking your snout in other folk’s business. Of course it’s an open forum and you have every right, it‘a just a bit humorously ironic.

That’s one of the most unique combinations of logically fallacies I’ve ever seen. Congratulations.

Unfortunately all either of you have is opinion and guesses.

 

Educate me, please Sir.

 

I don't care. I'm sure you're aware that at times in our history, the plurality of public opinion has been on the wrong side of an issue. To the extent that the public opposes the right of the people to keep and bear arms (and I think there's an argument to be made that they don't), they are wrong, just as if a plurality told a pollster that they thought free speech or religious freedom wasn't important.

Yes, their job is to see that the Constitution is adhered to and that unconstitutional laws are overturned. I expect them to do it, and I have a reasonable hope that they will now that we're getting a majority of Constitutional justices.

Sure, I'll work on that too, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to some sweet victories overturning gun bans as unconstitutional.

 

There are ways to check your sample for respondents who don't or won't answer honestly for any variety of reasons, including the fear of consequences for being honest.

Two issues are always good for a food fight--abortion and gun rights. In both cases, there are significant numbers of people prepared to defy restrictions they believe are unjust. There will be no end of trouble if we go too far banning guns or abortion.

 

plurality is "the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority."

Admittedly, this seems to be usage / term that's peculiar to the American dialect, but I'm confident that's what TOG 6 was referring to when he said HRC did not win a majority. In the American usage of those terms, she won a plurality, but not a majority.

 

What happened with Garland? Oh, Obama should not have nominated Garland in an election year as Trump is told by Democrat crybabies. See, what happened actually goes back to Bork. A Republican President nominated Bork and the Senate Democrats refused to allow a vote. Oh, they at least had a hearing. Big deal. I guess this is what happens when Senators on the Left try to stop the conservatives only to see it boomerang back at them. What goes around comes around. And, the way the Democrats in the minority treated Kavanaugh, there is no room for your pathetic argument.