>

Things shouldn't be this way, but they are. It's going to get worse before it gets better too. If you think the cops and the government are going to be on your side when the chips are down, well, I hope you're right but I don't share your faith in our institutions.
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. >

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. >

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? >

I'm a risk assessor, so you're barking up the wrong tree.  
You casually disregard the impact of the event, regardless of its probability, and the need to mitigate the risk based on that landscape. >

Alright, Risk Assessor. So are we taking into account the impact of the hysteria which causes otherwise rational adults to mistake an incredibly attenuated risk for an imminent one, scaring the shit out of everybody, especially little kids, for no good reason? How would you quantify that harm, Risk Assessor?
How many children die in an average year due to mass shootings, according to Giffords. Do you know?
Tens of millions of us were forced to do duck & cover drills at school and were assured by the news every night that nuclear war was imminent. Maybe that is why boomers are so fucked up, would you say? >

You know, you are ignoring a hard point to address that a 3rd grader, and other school children around the country, are doing these drills despite how low the risk is. You are using statistics to say that the kids shouldn’t need to because they are at such a low risk of actually being killed, but the fact of the manner is, kids are going through active shooter drills in an industrialized nation, not some war zone.
So, why are you trying to minimize the experience of the parents and children who have to go through these active shooter drills? What do you get out of it? >

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. >

If you're LGBT or a woman, the second amendment is all you have to defend yourself. >

And it shouldn't be like that. I'm a trans woman and I think it's really fucked up that I have to worry about getting shot in the back when just going to the grocery store. We need to get guns out of citizens'hands (Via something like government buybacks) and revamp the process of getting them but since about half of Americans seem to have a gun fetish that won't happen.