comment: >
  
  I wonder if you actually realize how incredibly unlikely that is. It is on the order of .00004% chance. Four hundred thousandths of one percent. I'd be happy to work through the math with you. Most people think hundreds or thousands of children die every year in mass shootings because of the continuous misinformation and exaggeration of figures who make an opulent living off disinformation and exaggeration.
  Perhaps if some of the people who advocate "common sense" gun restrictions were capable of common sense risk evaluation, we could all discuss this more reasonably. Who is really being radically unreasonable?
context: Spineless court makes decision based on their feelings creates confusion. 
  What a surprise!^/s >
  
  The arm must be on fire all the way to the pit. >
  
  Well that would be the literalist/originalist interpretation based on words on a page. >
  
  Caetano v. Massachusetts
  The SCOTUS was unanimous 9-0  including RBG "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" >
  
  Guess we better breakout the vx nerve gas. It's a bearable arm after all. >
  
  Yeah, where do chemical weapons fired as projectiles fall in this? Why should your handgun have more rights than my grenade launcher? >
  
  That Supreme Court decision was about stun guns and they included other criteria (based off Heller) such as military vs. civilian use, inherent risk, and how “dangerous or unusual” the weapon is. 
  The line quoted above is shutting down the claim a modern weapon by nature of being new is “unusual” and can therefore be banned. >
  
  The SCOTUS has made it clear that not all weapons and not all accessories are available to all people at all times.
  I just wish my daughter didn't have to do active shooter drills in 3rd grade.  But radicals and their nutty ideas have gotten us to that point, and want it to go even further.