Total posts: 1,048
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We need more regulations such as universal background checks, magazine capacity limits of 10 rounds for pistols, 5 for rifles, and red flag laws in every state.
Universal background checks are already in place for 22 states and DC. Yet the Feds haven't instituted it despite all their rhetoric to do so.
Law abiding citizens have nothing to hide, so fine, close the private sale loophole and force people to use federally licensed gun dealers to be the middleman in private sales. It isn't that hard. I've used it before. It was simple.
Magazine capacity limits of 10 for pistols has already been done. It was done back in like 1996 or thereabouts. I remember because I got a pistol late 1995 early 1996 that came with a 15-round clip, after that, all clips that came with a pistol or sold were 10 or less (depending on size of the pistol).
Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional and unnecessary. There are already enough laws on the books that can do the same once an actual legal case has been brought to the Courts for a judge to sign off on this after evidence has been presented to justify it. Not before without due process.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.Firstly, no; it’s not a genetic fallacy; which is where the content of the argument is dismissed based on where it came from - it’s dismissing the argument because it did not contain an argument, and merely asserted the truth of a given statement supported only by the authority.
Damn, if I had a $1 for every time you have been wrong, I would be a millionaire twice over.
An appeal to authority = genetic fallacy when invoked precisely because of it being "dismissed based on where (or who) it came from." It's a catch 22.
since capitulating on the substance
Delusions of grandeur, again.
Secondly, and most importantly : you refute yourself with your own links:
Nope. You are cherry-picking definitions out of context.
Yes, saying "you are an idiot" = name calling. But saying "Your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds," or "yet another fine display of the Dunning Kruger Effect" does NOT equal name calling. They are descriptive observations based on your behavior, demeanor, attitude and obvious lack of a legal education but still think you're a pseudo-legal scholar. Not name calling. Observation. Descriptions. Not epitaphs.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women.Circular argument.I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.This response is saying that the law doesn’t preclude the discrimination - because the law allows the discrimination. Your response assumes it’s own conclusion.Show me:
- how the text of the title VII allows for dress codes.
- what other superseding law, or text allows for this.
Bare assertions are not arguments.
It is NOT a circular argument. Your rebuttal is a strawman argument and an appea to ignorance.
"United States Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
Title VII is the seminal federal law impacting employer dress codes and appearance policies. "
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
Title VII is the seminal federal law impacting employer dress codes and appearance policies. "
"Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards that differentiates between men and women (specific requirements may differ) provided it is applied in an even-handed manner and does not impose an unequal burden on one sex over the other. For example, employer grooming policies requiring male employees to have short hair and imposing a make-up requirement for female employees have been upheld."
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (the federal agency charged with enforcement of Title VII) takes the position that employer appearance policies generally must be neutral, adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, and consistently applied to persons of all protected groups. "
I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.
No, you have not. Nowhere in Title VII (plain reading of the text) does it mention that a man can dress as a woman, or a woman can dress as a man and be protected under that law.
What you wear, or how you identify is not a gender specific condition dependent solely on your physiology and so isn’t covered by that unberella. [sic]
Yes, it is.
"Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards that differentiates between men and women (specific requirements may differ) provided it is applied in an even-handed manner and does not impose an unequal burden on one sex over the other. For example, employer grooming policies requiring male employees to have short hair and imposing a make-up requirement for female employees have been upheld."
Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work.This argument is circular.
No, it is not. Both are independently true and do not depend on the other to be true.
It is becoming clearer you do not comprehend what a circular argument is.
You assert BFOQ applies because: hootersI explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.
And you are wrong. They won that case precisely because of BFOQ.
More evidence you are ignorant of the law, how to read statutory law, how to correctly apply the law, and how to research and apply case law correctly and effectively.
There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied.You can’t cite a lower court precedent as a reason why the Supreme Court precedent that overrides it - is invalid.That’s not how precedent works. Which is as my point.
You spun the discussion off track which required other rebuttals. The OP doesn't cite lower cases in rebuttal to SCOTUS. I used the arguments Stephens made and discredited them based on the Court's implicit responsibility to consult legislative history when reviewing laws that are in question, and to avoid judicial activism while doing it. That's not citing anything other than the responsibility of the Court, which Gorsuch failed to do when he legislated from the bench.
Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy.No it doesn’t. It effects literally no one. The contents of ones pants should have no bearing on coworkers or corporations; and a man deciding one day to dress and act like a woman because that would make them happy - has no negative impact on anyone.
Yes, it does; and the fact that you cannot see that glaring fact with everything going on in the legal world where liberal progressives and the Biden-Harris Administration pushing for total acceptance of transgender basket cases (yes, it is a mental disorder, and that discussion can be had another time), barely (roughly) 0.7% of the population, through legal force. Which is precisely what Gorsuch did in this case. And it was a wrong decision. Legally UNSOUND. As clearly stated in the OP. None of which you have proven factually inaccurate. You've merely taken this off on your own red herring train track, and an uneducated one at that.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
There is no reality in which name calling is required to be nouns only
name - noun
calling - noun
name-calling - noun
To call a name or names, nouns are required, not adjectives.
Adjectives describe (e.g., behavior, demeanor, attitude, actions, etc.) and nouns label by reference to a thing, person, animal, place, etc.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your petulance knows no bounds.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
- The text of Title VII clearly and indisputably precludes firing a man for something a woman would be okay with.
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women.
Women are protected from a different kind of discrimination than men precisely because they are women and the only one of the two genders that can get pregnant. Same for breast feeding, as it is a "gender specific condition" protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
SCOTUS held in Rostker v Goldberg that it was constitutional to only require men to register for the draft. Again, based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles differentiating societal expectations between men and women.
- Legal text relating to BFOQ does not cover dress codes; and explicitly does not apply.
Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work.
- Legal citations you describe are wrongly decided based on the text of the law; and are appeals to authority neglecting that a higher disagreeing authority also exists.
LOL!!! You, who has ZERO experience in any field of the law, claim to know what cases are wrongly decided and my certain use of them is an appeal to authority.
Ridiculous. There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied.
Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
->@TWS1405A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone." ~ What is a well-regulated militia?Well now I know where you got all your ideas about the Second Amendment and Well Regulated Militias. From this tiny article in a tiny Libertarian magazine written by some moron who thinks highly of Antonio Scalia.
Psychic? Crystal ball? Sixth Sense?? Distant relative of Nostradamus?
Yeah, didn't think so. You know nothing. Mr. Dunning Kruger Effect.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authoritybingo
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.
When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.
Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.
Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.You are calling me names;
Adjectives do NOT equal nouns.
Descriptors of behavior is NOT name calling.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So far I am pretty disappointed with the quality of participants on this site.Are there any people with a brain? Liberal, conservative, or independent - Doesn’t matter as long as you have a firm grasp of reality.
BWAAHAAHAAHAAA!!!
Your psychological projection & hypocrisy knows no bounds!!!
Take a long look in the mirror, pal!!
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your desperation for attention and acknowledgement across the threads you engage in is so sophomoric.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Hey LCpl, this guy Robertson who just got sentenced to 7 years in jail for January 6 reminds me of you!
Red herring fallacy.
Strawman fallacy.
Ad Hominem fallacy.
Appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Non Sequitur fallacy
Just one fallacy after another...typical desperation from one who has no foundation to stand upon when asserting their unsubstantiated subjective position on the topic at hand in this thread.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.What you consider common sense is irrelevant. That’s not how we interpret the constitution.
Really? Hmmm...wonder what Thomas Paine was thinking then when he wrote "Common Sense." And what Charles Pergler thought when he wrote "Common Sense and the Constitution."
James Madison was the "common sense" centrist on the Constitution.
Shall I go on?
There is much talk in the federalist papers about the militia’s, how they would be organized, what their responsibilities would be, how they would size up against a tyrannical federal government, etc. I can find nothing in it suggestive of the idea that the militia’s they talk so much about were to be made up of every Tom Dick and Harry who decided to pull a gun out of their shed at any point. That’s why I ask. As far as I can tell this idea is purely made up.
"A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone." ~ What is a well-regulated militia?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
You have absolutely no answer at all to any of the points I raised; and now it appears your running away.Your position is intellectually bankrupt; and now it appears you are demonstrating that you have no ability to defend it.
More display of the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part. Bravo.
Claiming my position is intellectually bankrupt is to assert the same towards Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Kevin Gates, John McWhorter, Candice Owens, Dr Ben Carson, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Booker T Washington, Colin Powell, Harman Cain, Clarence Thomas, so on and so forth.
So, keep patting yourself on your back. I could care less about you and your delusions of grandeur.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your angry denials are meaningless...
I'm not angry. I have no emotional investment in this or any other discussion.
What I lack is patience for the uneducated who think they are pseudo know-it-alls. Like you.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.
Already done in the OP.
Created:
-->
@AnnaB17
What do you think about women who are intelligent but wear makeup because they don't think they are pretty.
If they are intelligent, then they wouldn't have self-esteem issues where their looks are concerned.
women who are thick and work out but never seem to bulk up.
Actions speak louder than words.
what about women who can cook, and clean, and be supportive, and willing to do what ever you need them to because they want to be there and be not only supportive but acknowledging the fact that no one is perfect and we all need help.
Marriage material.
give me you definition of your ideal woman all of you because if you guys are not willing to admit the fact that not all women are pretty and fit into societal standards but they try their best to look pretty in a way that they know how then what is the definition of pretty because being pretty and being beautiful are completely different things.
Long run-on sentence with little coherence.
women try their best to look pretty but a lot of men reject them because they are either not skinny enough or are not pretty enough or just don't fit the standards of the modern man. so if you tell me what your definitions of pretty beautiful what makes a pretty or beautiful woman not just according to societal standards i think i would better benefit and understand what you are saying.
There are social standards, social-psychological standards, and there are individual standards. The latter being the weakest and less defined. Some will just screw anything with a heartbeat.
Anthropology has demonstrated time and again from time immoral that women look for the strongest among men to provide offspring. When I say strongest, it is not physical strength alone. Mental. Financial. Mental. She needs someone to provide for her and their children, so their children have an increased survival and productive rate going forward.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First, I was not a corporal in the US Army. I was a Specialist in a position that put my rank (and position) above yours, Military Police Investigator under C.I.D.An army specialist is a junior enlisted rank in the U.S. Army and is equivalent in pay to a corporal. The rank of specialist is an E-4 position that typically involves basic management duties as well as commanding lower-ranked soldiers.- What Is a Specialist in the U.S. Army? | Indeed.com
I know perfectly well that a Specialist and Corporal are an equivalent pay. You said I was a corporal; I was not. I corrected you. You were wrong. End of story.
Notwithstanding, my position as an MPI under CID placed me above you while on duty, which was 24/7. So, your rank means nothing.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
“Intellectual cowardice” lol.Your silly blog shows that you are at best a supporter of White Grievance, at worst you are a white supremacist. Do you belong to any militias like the 3percenters?
Typical #DunnngKrugerEffect #IntellectualCoward #AdHominem retort.
Cannot prove me wrong, so you make absolutely baseless claims against my character while ignoring the core of the arguments therein that blog.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope. Just vocalizing an observation.for no-reason
For good reason.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
So you’ve dropped - and thus conceded...
I have conceded NOTHING where YOU are concerned.
You are too ignorant of legal matters to fully comprehend let alone appreciate the parameters entailed in the consequences of such judicial activism in the cited case in the OP.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope. Just vocalizing an observation.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Wrong. I've cited detailed info & cases that prove dress codes can be different for men and women. There is no circular reasoning on my part. That's on you.
You continue to refuse to read the OP and address the arguments Stephens made which are fallacious, as I had pointed out.
Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse, and we both know that dead horse will never get up to drink from the trough.
I'm done with you and your tunnel vision and pomposity.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Continue to stomp around in your mud puddle giggling away while patting yourself on the back for your delusions of grandeur. I have zero interest responding to you any further in this thread.
When I've merely repeating similar positions stated by black scholars and other persons of color, well-known names like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Dinesh D'Souza, and so on...your disagreement is sophomoric when weighed and measure against their intellect and experience(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yup, definitely enlisted. Only an enlisted guy would cite a British tabloid in a debate and think he has made a strong argument.
Genetic Fallacy
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Clearly your comprehension of understanding each term and their usage is subpar.another ad hominem attack
Nope. Observation. Not all ad hominems are true ad hominems.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Noticed that the two people arguing for gun control are ex-military with guns, who if ordered by the government to kill citizens they would obviously do so and want to be able to do it without citizens firing back.
Hope you're not referring to me in that statement. I am arguing against Roosevelt, not in support of his ignorant opinion.
Any soldier, past or present, who would shoot/kill their fellow citizens would be a disgrace to the uniform/Armed Forces.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
-->@3RU7ALwhen all else fails resort to ad hominem attack and rush to declare victoryDo you believe this TWS105 guy? He was a Corporal in the Army and then a bounty hunter and he thinks he’s Frasier Crane.I’m guessing he “retired” at 45 either on disability or nobody would hire him.He has a blog that shows how he suffers from White Fragility and status anxiety.
First, I was not a corporal in the US Army. I was a Specialist in a position that put my rank (and position) above yours, Military Police Investigator under C.I.D.
Second, I was never a "bounty hunter."
Third, I do not "think" I am "Frasier Crane."
Fourth, you can guess all you want as you will always be wrong. I retired from a County District Attorney's Office, having prior worked for the County Sheriff for a little more than 6 years.
Last but not least, your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds. That blog does not show anything about me but more about you and those likeminded.
Though it has already been pointed out, I will add to it...you're a hypocrite accusing me of doing exactly what you just did.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope. An observation of fact.you are conflating fact and opinion
An amoeba can claim that. Are you an amoeba???
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Intellectual coward - Intellectual coward - Dunning Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort. You lose Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort. You loselol. I can just imagine you hanging out at the E-Club using words like that.
#hypocrite
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Clearly your comprehension of understanding each term and their usage is subpar.another ad hominem attack
Nope. An observation of fact.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Bingo?
Clearly your comprehension of understanding each term and their usage is subpar.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ad hominem
Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward. Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating.Wikipedia
Red herring
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies, or may be used in argumentation inadvertently. The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.Wikipedia
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
NOTE: I am presenting NO argument for or against.
Just posting links to INFORMATION.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is truth no matter how you try to slice it.Prove him right, and me wrong if you disagree.Otherwise, fuck off.naked assertionsand now with commands
It's called burden of proof for a reason. Alien.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Intellectual coward.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Intellectual coward - Dunning Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort.You losewhen all else failsresort to ad hominem attackand rush to declare victory
Truth is truth no matter how you try to slice it.
Prove him right, and me wrong if you disagree.
Otherwise, fuck off.
I have ZERO patience for the ignorant.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, Army. Military Police Corp. Airborne.Military Police Investigator under the Criminal Investigation Division. You know, like NCIS, but just the Army's version of it. Makes me far more intelligent than you, peon.Oh good, you went back and added your resume. Well I’m sure the army had many brilliant criminal investigators like yourself in the ranks.
Intellectual coward - Dunning Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort.
You lose
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
**YAWN**That is an absolutely great answer to the argument.
It sure IS when there is NO argument presented.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
My argument is that the wording of the law precludes setting one rule for men, and another for woman.
But it does!
When it comes to dress codes, so long as it is not sexually provocative to disparage women, it is perfectly acceptable to require men to dress as men based on societal/cultural standards and the same for women within the context of the business qualification standards.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
TEXTUALIST JURISPRUDENCE:"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]"
Ordinary meaning of the legal text...
HMMMM!!!! Man is a man. Woman is a woman. Pretty simple
Man dressing as a woman IS NOT a woman.
Woman dressing as a man IS NOT a man.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Awesome psychological projection and intellectual cowardice.
You are the poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There are over 335 million people in this country. Roughly 78 million are children. So, I was a little short with the 300 million reference. Still doesn't negate what I said as the proffered position.Either way, children become of age and the government would still need more weapons. Especially when weapons fail or are damaged. Children or no children, a surplus is needed. It is required.OMG, You definitely were enlisted in the army. Oh the brain power.
Wow, impressive intellectual coward retort there twit.
Yes, Army. Military Police Corp. Airborne.
Military Police Investigator under the Criminal Investigation Division. You know, like NCIS, but just the Army's version of it. Makes me far more intelligent than you, peon.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
An AR-15 is NOT a "military type" armament.Really? Semi-automatic rifles in 5.56 mm with 30 round magazines are the typical weapon of armies today, including ours.
Military-style means that the rifle is switchable between single-fire and automatic fire. AR-15s cannot do that.
Note that a semi-automatic isn’t the same as an automatic. In a semi-automatic rifle, a shell is fired every time the trigger is squeezed. In an automatic, depressing the trigger results in one shell after another being fired for however long the trigger is depressed until there is no more ammunition left to fire.
An AR-15 is not a military-style rifle because it has no automatic fire capability, which would be illegal.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Can you please point to me where in the constitution, the federalist papers, or anywhere else the framers discussed this?It's called commonsense
I was asked where the framers discussed this. I replied, "It's called commonsense."
In context, that description where "the framers discussed this" is within the framework of "commonsense."
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I say "every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia..." That statement by YOU, not me, is what is truly "dumb."Also, you were the one who mentioned something about PA stockpiling weapons. Now when I bring it up to a more present-day value, you call it stupid. #hypocrite.So it was a coincidence that you said the government would need 300 million weapons stockpiled to supply the militia and we are a country of just over 300 million people? And if you are comparing a value (number) today to colonial times then you are suggesting we would need a weapon for every man, woman, and child. Idiot!
You're not the brightest bulb in the pack.
There are over 335 million people in this country. Roughly 78 million are children. So, I was a little short with the 300 million reference. Still doesn't negate what I said as the proffered position.
Either way, children become of age and the government would still need more weapons. Especially when weapons fail or are damaged. Children or no children, a surplus is needed. It is required.
Again, you're not very bright.
Created: