Proud of our Youth !

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

I am opening myself up for attack on this one, I am fully aware. However, today I am very proud of our youth and all who protested!

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

Now if the NRA wants to defend the rights to own a single shot rifle, no problem, I will march alongside the NRA.

Steve

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:



and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today



please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?




A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)





times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

Nick, thank you for the great post.

[JollyElm]

So, I'm going to listen to little snowflakes, who think eating Tide Pods is fun, telling me that my guns need to be taken away from me???? What a bunch of BS. They're blatantly being used by a certain side of the aisle as political pawns, and it's laughable.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Criminals who do illegal things would love for more types of guns to get banned and out of the law abiding owners...more unarmed people to go after who follow the law

bump stocks i can see being banned but without a constitutional amendment, all of this protesting will only amount to some very narrow law for the political 'victory' and on to the next thing

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

What’s frustrating about debating are arguments that A. Make such broad generalizations and B. Are done mainly to denigrate the opposite view.

If you do want to have honest debate, a little respect helps. And please, if somebody on the other side is misinformed, HELPING them works a lot better than aggressive condescension.

I have a great deal of respect for Leon allowing this discussion to take place, because while people here may come from all over the political landscape, we share a common interest. I had hoped that would foster constructive discussion, but that is not the case in many responses.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

What’s frustrating about debating are arguments that A. Make such broad generalizations and B. Are done mainly to denigrate the opposite view.

If you do want to have honest debate, a little respect helps. And please, if somebody on the other side is misinformed, HELPING them works a lot better than aggressive condescension.

I have a great deal of respect for Leon allowing this discussion to take place, because while people here may come from all over the political landscape, we share a common interest. I had hoped that would foster constructive discussion, but that is not the case in many responses.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

With all due respect, This is the part I disagree with and don't think is going on generally. That side of the argument doesn't want to abolish all of gun ownership rights. I lean to more gun ownership for protection. But the left is ok with guns just not assault guns, I think. And I think they want a lot more common sense things too which we should all be able to agree on.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

[packs]

I find it surprising that some people could think of protests as not adding up to much. Women were granted the right to vote, we passed the Civil Rights Act and desegregated our schools and public spaces because of protests. We pulled out of the Vietnam War due in large part to the pressure of public opinion as well. They are extremely powerful statements and the solidarity needed to pull them off is what brings people together for change.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

[barrysloate]

David- that's a very fair question and you know what? I don't have an answer. You are correct that the gun control people can be vague.

But you know what I would like? To have a reasonable discussion with gun rights people like yourself- and I know you know a whole lot more about guns than I do- and not have insults thrown at me. Calling me a snowflake won't get the job done.

All either side wants is for the other side to listen.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

As a law abiding gun owner, I wouldn't have an objection that, but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes?

To me, it would be just about as effective as a so-called background check.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

yeah, that's great this way a tyrannical govt will have a nice list in which to round up all those they oppose.. How very Stalin of you....

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

I don't know if I'm right or left anymore. I am registered as a Republican, although I never vote that way because I think that, at least in my state, they have moved too far right. I consider myself to be a moderate and here, that means you vote Dem and know that you are going to lose. It is what it is. Leon, that isn't really political. It's just a statement of how I view things.

I have guns, although not so many as I used to since I don' do much but bird hunt any more, Don't even own a handgun anymore. Just a couple of shotguns and deer rifles, I can tell you one thing I want though. I want the gun show loophole to be closed. I don't think anyone should be able to walk in to a gun show, buy a gun, and walk out with it right then without any scrutiny. That is ridiculous in my opinion So are bump stocks and banana clips. That isn't for self-defense and it isn't for hunting. That's just for killing folks. There is no other reason than to shoot faster and with more bullets.

Irrespective of party or viewpoint on guns, it is a fact that our kids are getting killed in the schools they go to. As of today, 22 school shootings in 20 weeks. That is way fucked up. Kids, and parents, should be able to expect that when they leave for school, they will actually be able to come back alive. That isn't happening. Then we offer our prayers and forget about it two days later. That is simply wrong. Period. I get that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Right, But people with guns can kill other people far more quickly and far more effectively. Therein lies the problem.

Just like every constitutional provision, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you absolute right to own any weapon you want. For example, you don't get to own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Explain how your second amendment rights guarantee you that right as you are being cuffed and carted off to jail by the FBI or ATF. I don't think you can. Nor do I think you will be exonerated. Why do you need an AR? I have hunted all my life and have never owned, used, or felt I needed, an AR. Obviously I'm missing something.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be repealed, although if you look at the historical basis for its passage, it seems pretty clear that the primary reason it was passed no longer exists . Be that as it may, I'm certainly not advocating that. I am advocating that we do stuff, like serious background checks, getting rid of the gun show loophole, and that we restrict bump stocks and huge clips. Unlike the NRA, I don't think that's unreasonable. I just want my kids to be safe.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Even the NRA wasn't always anti gun-control. In most of our lifetimes the NRA advocated FOR gun control.

In the 1930s, the NRA helped pass bills that regulated submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, banned some gun buyers and made gun dealers register with the government. Its cooperation continued following the political and racial assassinations of the 1960s.

In the 1970s, the NRA’s public image began to change after a law-breaking member was killed by an ATF agent. In 1977, it adopted a policy opposing all forms of gun control. Despite this, after the attempt on NRA member President Ronald Reagan’s life, the NRA reluctantly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases. The bill included a 10-year ban on assault weapons. When the ban expired in 2004, the NRA had gained enough political clout to prevent its renewal.

Do a search on the worst mass shootings in US history. Take note of how many occurred after those key dates. Namely 1977 and 2004 the results might or might not shock you.

The NRA being bought and paid for by big business, which is in turn buying and paying for our politicians is the problem, and frankly I don't see that as a political opinion, but maybe I'm being naive.

I'll leave you with this thought, from a former president of the NRA Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

So where does the modern NRA attitude come from???

Probably a dumb post to make for someone in business, and my intent isn't to piss off one side or please the other. Merely to call attention to the fact that games are being played and our children are apparently the expendable pawns on the board.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

maybe enforcing the gun laws we already have?

maybe actually following through when agencies get reports of strange and dangerous behavior ?

maybe securing schools and eliminating "gun free zones?"

why is a courthouse and other govt buildings riddled with armed security (and our politicians) but not schools?

why not deal with the problems instead of trying to take away the rights of citizens.

you may not believe that this is the goal, but it's obvious to any defender of our constitution that abolition is the long term goal of those who oppose the 2nd amendment.


ETA: once again you use the word "assault weapon" please define what it is, in detail

ETTA: why is it surprising that I don't own guns yet defend the rights of my fellow americans? are you only interested in the bill of rights when it applies to you?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

[barrysloate]

David- you can always find one person to say anything. The second amendment will not be repealed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Leon

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

bolded mine


Gun owners, and 2nd amendment advocates, have given and given on this issue, from 1934 to the stupid assault weapons ban of 1994 (that was dropped because they discovered it did zero to stop gun violence) and we are not giving one more inch without a fight.

The problem is, if you give up one thing, then it becomes the foundation for them to move on to the next thing, and the next thing. If you don't think the agenda of the "gun control" movement is abolition then you are either delusional or in cahoots with them. (and the "you" is rhetorical not directed at you Leon personally)


"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


not to mention that these people know zero about guns, what right do they have to attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens when they aren't even willing to take the time to understand what they are fighting against?

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by Leon

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.145a78c0fb93

Sorry Leon, but you need to get out and talk to more liberals.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

[barrysloate]

Well Leon, I'm a liberal and I fully support the right of responsible Americans to own guns. I have absolutely no issue with it.

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk. Why isn't there a system in place that can prevent an unhinged lunatic from so easily buying one?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mikemb

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

Are you saying that Justice Stephens didn't say that just because of the news source?

Would it give you a nice warm, fuzzy feeling inside if it came from MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ndments-repeal

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mikemb

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

And CNN.... Any better?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:



and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today



please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?




A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)





times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

Perfect post A+++

[KMayUSA6060]

Son of a gun (see what I did there? ). I get busy outside of the hobby, visit this site less often over the past couple of months, and I miss the start of this thread. Let's dig into the entire picture here, boys.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:

and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?

A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)

times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.

You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

First, let's start with this post, as it is phenomenal. I do have a few things/details to add...

- AR (as in AR15 or AR10) stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle. Assault is an action, not a tangible item.

- AR15s can be powerful if chambered in something bigger than the traditional 5.56 or .223. I know Alexander Arms has a 50 Beowulf AR15, there is a .458 SOCOM AR15 - those are both hard hitting, powerful rounds. However, to my knowledge, no shooting in the US has ever utilized those rounds, or any round bigger than the 5.56/.223. Those larger-caliber AR15s and AR10s - chambered in 7.62/.308 - are more powerful than the traditional AR15, but are also more expensive, thus the use of the 5.56/.223. I mention this because AR15s can definitely be higher powered, but the mass shootings everyone points to use the lower-powered calibers.

- The estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in this country is over 300 million. That's estimated to be around 42% of the world's civilian gun ownership total. America rocks. If guns were a problem, this country and the world would know it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for my thoughts...

- I am not proud of our youth for their sheepish protests; the majority are following, ignorantly following to boot. I'm even more disappointed in our "educators" for not pressing them on the issues. I emailed my high school's principal and superintendent when I heard that they allowed a walkout. I challenged them to challenge the students, because that is their job. The students have the right to protest, but as educators, they should be challenging the students to prevent protest in ignorance. I asked them if they challenged the students to research the group Empower (the one who started the mass school walkout protests) and its origins. I asked if they questioned the students on what AR stands for, and what a semi-automatic rifle is and how it functions compared to a bolt-action rifle and fully automatic rifle. I asked if they were challenging the kids on the type of legislation they are pushing for and how it would prevent any previous mass shootings, and any future mass shootings. I asked if they were questioning the kids on the details of the Parkland shooting.

- It has been 1.5-2 months since the Parkland shooting, and we're finding out more and more about the negligence of our government which enabled the shooting to occur. Cruz and his brother had been known to law enforcement over 40 times (I think the number is up to 60), including a YouTube comment under Cruz's name literally stating that he wants to become a professional school shooter. Cruz was then permitted into the PROMISE program, a program designed to limit the number of arrests of youth, to lower the uneven number of minorities vs. white youth in jail or whatever. I believe the superintendent of the school system down there implemented the program; he is from politically-corrupt Chicago. Had Cruz been properly documented and not protected by law enforcement and such a program, he never would have been able to purchase a firearm. Strike 1 against our government.

- We now know that the school resource officer AND the law enforcement that arrived on scene failed to engage Cruz during the shooting. In fact, they stayed outside the building, and didn't arrest Cruz until he had left school grounds. Strike 2 against our government.

- The most common denominator/factor of most - if not all - mass shootings is medication. Cruz and nearly - again, if not all - mass shooters have been on some sort of anti-depressent/anxiety medication. Who is in charge of our healthcare system? The government. However, I have yet to see a protest against the over/improper prescription of these medications. Strike 3.

I mentioned 3 issues with the shooting, not one of which was the firearm itself. Someone has to pull the trigger on a firearm for a projectile to be fired.

We have common sense gun laws in this country already. It's up to the government officials to properly enforce those laws, which they did not with Parkland.

Additionally, to direct the attention back onto our youth, I believe they are being used as puppets by the establishment and the media to push an agenda. They won't give pro-2A-Parkland-survivor Kyle Kashuv the time of day, but will parade David Hogg and pro-Cuba Emma Gonzalez onto their networks 24/7.

Also, who is challenging these youth "protesters" how their proposed legislation will actually work and prevent mass shootings? They're just letting them spew ignorant talking points.

Here's what I propose...

- Hire former law enforcement and military veterans to be armed guards at schools.

- Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further.

- Overhaul the education system to get back to the fundamental essentials that used to be taught - i.e. life lessons, skilled labor education, and basic morals - instead of the social justice indoctrination and bloated emphasis on "testing" currently found in our school systems (again, run by government).

- Target drug smugglers and dealers HARD to get drugs off the streets. This should help prevent addiction problems at an early age, as well as stabilize the traditional family.

- Keep improving the economy, measuring our welfare programs by the number of people coming off. Again, this should help stabilize the traditional family, thus giving our youth a more stable upbringing.


I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat; I am an American, and a proud one at that. Therefore, my beliefs center around the Constitution, a blessing from our Founding Fathers and God Himself in response to a war for freedom against a tyrannical government. That's why the Second Amendment is written, that's why it's so high on the list, and that's why it includes the phrase "shall not be infringed".


I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, so I apologize if any of this has been stated before.

[packs]

The federal government and local government are two separate entities and your post is blurring the lines between them in several areas. Our government is not the government of Florida unless you live in Florida. People aren't corrupt by default because of where they come from (Chicago, for example) and you don't really give any credit to high school students being able to think for themselves. You are simultaneously suggesting these kids are victims of group think while also suggesting they should think the way you do. That's a contradiction.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

The federal government and local government are two separate entities and your post is blurring the lines between them in several areas. Our government is not the government of Florida unless you live in Florida. People aren't corrupt by default because of where they come from (Chicago, for example) and you don't really give any credit to high school students being able to think for themselves. You are simultaneously suggesting these kids are victims of group think while also suggesting they should think the way you do. That's a contradiction.

- Not sure where I blurred the lines between the two. Both the FBI and local law enforcement were aware of Cruz.

- Not sure what your point is about our government not being Florida's government. So are only people from Florida allowed to comment on this matter?

- You're right, people aren't corrupt by default because of where they are from. However, context clues, a track record of corruption, and common sense tells us not to trust politicians, let alone from Chicago. By the way, Chicago is a perfect example of gun control being not only ineffective, but detrimental to the public's safety.

- I refuse to give credit for their ability to think for themselves when the original school walkout was organized by Empower, not individual students. I've also seen many interviews that suggest they are very uneducated on the subjects they are bringing attention to.

- They are absolutely victims of group think, but I do not want them to think like me. I want them to have all of the facts, something I know for a fact they aren't provided with in school, and simply for them to think. If they end up thinking like me in the end, fine, but I just want them to think.


Instead of trying to (incorrectly) nit-pick any sort of semantics in my post and try to demean me politically, do you have any comments on my suggestions to prevent future mass shootings?

[packs]

I wasn't demeaning you at all. I just thought it's important to distinguish between generalities. For example, you had said our government gets a strike because the guard on duty and local law enforcement didn't enter the school. That's not a strike against our government, that's a strike against two individuals who work for local law enforcement.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I wasn't demeaning you at all. I just thought it's important to distinguish between generalities. For example, you had said our government gets a strike because the guard on duty and local law enforcement didn't enter the school. That's not a strike against our government, that's a strike against two individuals who work for local law enforcement.

This just single-handily ended this entire debate (albeit with an incorrect statement since there were more than 2 security/law enforcement individuals that did not enter the building).

Blame the individual, not the government, which could also be re-worded for this discussion.

Blame the individual, not the gun.

[packs]

I wasn't debating. I was pointing out generalities in your post, like the one referenced above, a person being corrupt by default because of where they're from, and you not giving people credit for their own thoughts.

I guess I wasn't clear either: "our government" isn't the government of Florida, which is who those enforcement agents work for. So our government played no role in the local officials failing to enter the building, who are part of Florida's state and local government agencies.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

... do you have any comments on my suggestions to prevent future mass shootings?

"Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further".

While I do like your suggestions, in general, I personally place a very high value on youth athletics. I know my town does spend a lot of money on youth sports, but a lot of it is also parents volunteering (coaching/concession stand/running the leagues/maintaining fields) and donations from sponsors. I rank kids being active higher than arming the teachers, if I was in charge of portioning money.

And I'm also torn on whether to arm the teachers. Good points have been made for/against it, so while I'd be open to it, I wouldn't "pull the trigger" (bad pun, sorry) if I were in charge of making the decision.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I wasn't debating. I was pointing out generalities in your post, like the one referenced above, a person being corrupt by default because of where they're from, and you not giving people credit for their own thoughts.

I guess I wasn't clear either: "our government" isn't the government of Florida, which is who those enforcement agents work for. So our government played no role in the day's failings of local officials who are part of Florida's government agencies.

I actually never stated that he was corrupt. I inferred it based on the corruption in Chicago, but that's well known and documented. Again, these aren't the thoughts of individuals, but rather the thoughts of a group being followed by the students, largely in a blind manner. I can't in good conscious give credit for that.

The FBI is the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation, and were tipped off on Cruz. They were well involved, and failed to do their job. Whether it be a Florida office location or not, they are still part of the federal government. Additionally, again speaking in a general sense, I talked about the flaws in our education system, which stem from the Department of Education, a federal department.

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

"Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further".

While I do like your suggestions, in general, I personally place a very high value on youth athletics. I know my town does spend a lot of money on youth sports, but a lot of it is also parents volunteering (coaching/concession stand/running the leagues/maintaining fields) and donations from sponsors. I rank kids being active higher than arming the teachers, if I was in charge of portioning money.

And I'm also torn on whether to arm the teachers. Good points have been made for/against it, so while I'd be open to it, I wouldn't "pull the trigger" (bad pun, sorry) if I were in charge of making the decision.

I agree on finding other ways in the budget or other ways in general to fund the training for teachers, as I like school athletics as well. I only said athletics because it's the least detrimental to the academics side of school.

I'm not for arming all teachers. Like I said, it would have to be done in a voluntary manner. There are many teachers that are military veterans, and with others being gun enthusiasts (see Hickock45 on YouTube). I think those are the type of people who would make a great second line of defense.

[clydepepper]

It ALL comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

THAT, IMO, covers the entire discussion!


I cannot believe that anyone would argue against that, but you probably will.


...and, that, is the world we live in...