Proud of our Youth !

[chlankf]

Originally Posted by Leon

It would seem that we can all agree on not letting mentally unstable people have guns. That might be a pretty big task in itself.

But who decides what mentally unstable is?

I agree that some have given up their right and other just shouldn't own. But.the definition of mentally unstable is where we could have big issues.

[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.