None of our rights, no matter how fundamental, are absolute, not least because they sometimes conflict with each other. But our Constitution enumerated the big ones for a reason. Restrictions of them should be compellingly justified & narrowly tailored.
-
-
Show this thread
-
In 2017, I looked at the structural reasons for intransigence on the part of gun-rights defendershttps://www.nationalreview.com/corner/will-banning-bump-stocks-lead-gun-bans/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lot more than one place where you dont hear about mass shootings man
- Show replies
-
-
-
88,000 alcohol related deaths each year,12k were DWI. CDC. Here’s the ugly reality-there are trade offs in society. 500 horrific deaths per year from rifles is a nightmare. But it is a trade off almost two magnitudes smaller than alcohol. And that is purely for pleasure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have always believed that compromise should be reached. Increased federal background checks and permitting reqs with ease in licensing laws, like maybe a national shall issue carry permit that overrides states denying their citizens the right to bear arms. But no one will budge
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Each restriction should be considered on its own merits. Besides, our Constitution makes it nearly impossible to take away all the guns. So, people need to stop suggesting that the slope is even going there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.