@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:You don't have the say on what a compelling interest is.
Luckily the concept is already well defined, so I don't have to define it. All I have to do is point out your failure to provide any compelling government interest.
MontereyJack wrote:State legislatues have decided there is a compelling interest in banning assault-style weapons.
They aren't assault weapons. They are ordinary hunting rifles.
Decreeing that you have a compelling government interest doesn't cut it. You have to actually be able to present a compelling government interest.
I know progressives have this delusion that reality is whatever they say that it is at a given moment, but the world doesn't actually work that way.
MontereyJack wrote:The courts have let those laws stand. They have accepted the argument that there is a compelling interest in banning them.
Wrong. Not hearing a case does not mean a decision one way or another. It only means that the Supreme Court has not taken up the case yet.
And Justice Kavanaugh has a strong history of protecting the Second Amendment on the lower courts. He'll do quite well on the Supreme Court.
https://prospect.org/justice/judge-kavanaugh-s-extremist-position-second-amendment/
MontereyJack wrote:Your opinion has no weight. Deservedly.
Wrong again. While progressives may wish that America was a dictatorship, it remains a democracy, and I get to vote in it.
Further, the reality that I can back my arguments with actual facts makes my views much more persuasive than your claims that you never back up.