Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Friday’s events might be smaller and fewer, but also more focused. Daylong walkouts, letter-writing campaigns for stiffer gun laws, and voter-registration drives are planned in many locations.

Are they going to have another competition to see who can fling their baby rattle the farthest while screaming at the top of their lungs?

2 Replies

Public ed students looking for something to protest should consider protesting the systematic dumbing down which government schools impose on them.

http://www.swaraj.org/multiversity/gatto_7lesson.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KZvOWrT9h4&t=147s

0 Replies

amongst the reasons for private ownership of firearms...

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30742633_1735269023200448_5397475458466327601_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&_nc_eui2=v1%3AAeH9aWfphXbtkNdoXhVWzf1pTAERiMykVw1Phq-vmJ3UAaUhroePFh_yjw3OelBccywJk29FpThUog0e7YlHV8h7IFxla_Zz6WQePlyOQnIQ7A&oh=73d8b678f0483824993610a57c46f88f&oe=5B6247F8

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

who can fling their baby rattle the farthest

If they throw like Obama the rattle won't go that far.

Certified girly man.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

I hope he/she is charged with terrorism. Isn't terrorism defined as committing violence for a political end?

What exactly do you think the 'political' end was here?

From what has been released as of now, the former student shot at the bottom portion of a closed door and then dropped the gun and tried to hide. Unless he says it was a political statement designed to terrify students and staff, or for some other reason, it was an unfortunate incident. An incident which reminds us that they proliferation of weapons and the ease of acquiring them needs to be harnessed.

Do you somehow possess a direct link to the shooter's brain? If the answer is "no", then you do not know with certainty that this was 'political'. If the Sheriff's Department and the media release information saying it was political then it can go that route.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

whiny, whiny, whiny, oralloy. If I were you, I'd be getting scared now, because there is anentire generatkion growing up that doesn't buy your or the NRA's propaganda. Did you notice, they're emphasizing VOTER REGISTRATION. Kids can pre-r egister to vote at 16 now, which includes the bulk of those marching out. When they turn 18 they'll automatically become registered voters AND THEY DON'T THINK LIKE YOU. They know that the NRA is only strong because they've bought and paid for al lot of corrupt politicians,and the whole House is coming up for election this fall. Vote them out, and the NRA is toothless, and they're prepared to do just that. Baby rattles, heel, rattlesankes in your boaom is what you've got to watch out for. They're gunning for you.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Bad pun intended.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

whiny, whiny, whiny, oralloy.

It's pretty silly to falsely accuse me of whining when I'm not the one who is in the middle of a park throwing a temper tantrum.

MontereyJack wrote:

If I were you, I'd be getting scared now, because there is anentire generatkion growing up that doesn't buy your or the NRA's propaganda.

I'm not afraid of freedom haters.

MontereyJack wrote:

Did you notice, they're emphasizing VOTER REGISTRATION.

No. I'm not paying any attention to them at all.

Freedom of Speech gives them the right to throw temper tantrums in public parks. It does not require me to waste my valuable time paying attention to the temper tantrums. Just have someone post a brief headline saying who won the gold medal in the screaming baby rattle toss and that's enough for me.

MontereyJack wrote:

They know that the NRA is only strong because they've bought and paid for al lot of corrupt politicians,and the whole House is coming up for election this fall.

Having delusions about the nature of their opponent guarantees their defeat.

MontereyJack wrote:

Vote them out, and the NRA is toothless, and they're prepared to do just that.

They are not capable of doing such a thing. All they are capable of doing is throwing a temper tantrum.

MontereyJack wrote:

Baby rattles, heel, rattlesankes in your boaom is what you've got to watch out for. They're gunning for you.

I'm going to enjoy seeing pictures of them crying each time we defeat them, over and over again.

That part is going to be fun.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

I was going by the Headline of the post I was responding to.

Quote:

A school shooting preempted a Florida high school’s walkout against school shootings

However, it is more than possible I understood "preempted" wrong.

0 Replies

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30738733_1788320378142122_8377783469584799674_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=49678e04e79d38df1f7770183b078f6b&oe=5B5190E5

0 Replies

Quote:

NARRATIVE FAIL: Newly Discovered CDC Surveys Demolish Anti-Gun Talking Points

Quote:

Newly discovered statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that were never released to the public strengthens the argument for guns, and blows a hole in the gun control narrative. The statistics show that guns are used in a defensive manner against crimes far more than they are used by criminals to commit crimes.

A new report from Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck shows that recently unearthed surveys from the CDC, which were never made public, show that Americans use guns in millions of defense scenarios every year on average.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29724/narrative-fail-uncovered-surveys-cdc-failed-make-ryan-saavedra

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The standards for determining what limitations are acceptable and what limitations are not acceptable are the varying levels of judicial scrutiny that I linked earlier.

So do you agree that Justice Scalia and the majority of the court applied that standard when they said that M16 and the like can be banned without violating the 2nd amendment?

1 Reply

In a recent ruling, again we have a court decistion that a ban on assault weapons is constitutional.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-massachusetts/u-s-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKCN1HD2CW

This is simply another of a long line of such cases where a ban on assault weapons has been upheld by the courts and all the recent ones use the reasoning presented by Scalia in Heller. In none of the cases has the Supreme Court felt the lower courts were wrong in upholding the bans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7e0b3b629d51
So we have appeals court upholding assault weapons bans in the 2nd, 7th, 4th, and DC. Now we have a court ruling upholding the ban in the 1st. We can only wait and see if it is even appealed. The Supreme Court has declined to take up the 4 appeals so far effectively making it constitutional to ban assault style weapons.

It seem some here would attempt to argue that an AR-15 is not like an M-16 but that is a weak argument that has been put to rest by the courts in their rulings. Not only is the AR-15 like an M-16 several things point to them being the same thing.

One need only look at the history of the M-16 to see it is based on or a variation of the AR-15. If we can trust the internet there is even a military manual being given away which purports to be the miltary manual for the M-16/AR-15. But even more telling is the history of the M16 which states "ArmaLite’s W focus was thus changed to the 22-caliber rifle and the AR-15 M (ArmaLite Rifle model 15) was born. In 1958, General Wyman ordered the Army to conduct the first tests on the new AR-15."
https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
You said that "gun-free zones" are what leads to mass shootings, not the proliferation of guns.

That isn't what I said at all, don't put words in my mouth and then expect me to "defend" something I didn't say.
Here is what I actually said:

Quote:
The application of "gun free zones", which is where all these mass shootings take place,

I stand by my statement.

Quote:
This is irrational and false. Vegas is only one counter-example among dozens in recent memory, where a mass shooting happened outside of a gun-free zone.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "all".

Quote:

all

1.used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
"all the people I met"

The argument that all mass shootings happen in gun-free zones is disproven by simply providing one instance. But the reality is that mass shootings happen quite often in areas where guns are not banned. Case in point is just yesterday where at least 4 people were shot by an assault style rifle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/us/waffle-house-shooting.html
A Waffle House in TN is not a gun-free zone. The parking lot of said Waffle House is not a gun-free zone.
TN allows carry in restaurants.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/tennessee-gun-laws/

Quote:

Irrational was you changing what I said to fit your bullshit points. Which other mass shootings have taken place in area's where guns are allowed? You've made the statement, now back it up with some proof.
Last time I checked, the anti-gun groups were pushing the idea that we have to stop the killing of our children in their schools. "It's for the kid's!".

You said the word "all". No one changed that. It is you that is pretending you didn't use it by claiming an exception proves "all" is correct.

Quote:

Fact's are stubborn they are also required to prove a point, which you have not done. You have to prove that the majority of mass shootings take place in none "gun free zones". Remember, it is you who is trying to say that Las Vegas is the rule and not the exception when it comes to mass shootings.

Would you accept the statement that all mass shooters use weapons that would have been banned under the Federal assault weapons ban? I doubt it yet of the locations of mass shootings you listed, almost all of them used weapons that would have been banned.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

VA Tech, Sandyhook, Columbine, Pulse Night club, CO Theater Shooting, Navy Yard, Parkland...

Quote:
As I said, facts are stubborn.

I'm still waiting for those facts...

An interesting list.
Let's add back in Vegas and First Baptist Church and do a comparison.

VA Tech - Gun-free, No weapon banned under 1994 Assault weapon ban
Sandyhook Gun-free, 1994 banned weapon used
Columbine Gun-free, During the weapon ban so no banned weapon used
Pulse Night Club - Gun-free, 1994 banned weapon used
CO Theater Shooting - Gun-free, 1994 banned weapon used
Navy Yard - Gun-free, no 1994 banned weapon used
Vegas - Not Gun-free, 1994 banned weapon used
First Baptist Church - Not Gun-free, 1994 banned weapon used

That leaves us with the following:
Gun-free zones - 6 of 8
A 1994 banned weapon is used - 5 of 7 (We should exclude Columbine because it is during the ban)

In a small sample size 5 of 7 is basically the same as 6 of 8 because of margin of error.

If we exclude Columbine completely from the data because it happened during the weapons ban we end up with:
Gun-free zones - 5 of 7
A weapon banned under the 1994 law is used - 5 of 7

And you still think the Gun-free zones are the problem and it can't possibly be the weapons?

0 Replies

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

So do you agree that Justice Scalia and the majority of the court applied that standard when they said that M16 and the like can be banned without violating the 2nd amendment?

Yes.

But you have openly stated that your references to court rulings are not being offered in support of any argument that you are making. These pointless references would find a more ready audience in the "trivia and word games" section.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

Quote:

Not only is the AR-15 like an M-16 several things point to them being the same thing.

So the AR-15 is both like an M-16 and is the same as an M-16? First, how is the AR-15 not like an M-16?

Quote:

Case in point is just yesterday where at least 4 people were shot by an assault style rifle.

Why are you calling it an assault style rifle?

0 Replies

#blackriflesmatter

Very Happy

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I don't know why this rule is in force, when I was in the military no one saw it fit to tell me why.

My guess is that it's a safety measure to reduce the risk of soldiers shooting one another on military bases. But maybe it's the opposite, maybe the US Army wants its soldiers to be more easily killed by mass shooters? Go figure with them gun-banning military snowflakes.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

My guess is that it's a safety measure to reduce the risk of soldiers shooting one another on military bases. But maybe it's the opposite, maybe the US Army wants its soldiers to be more easily killed by mass shooters? Go figure with them gun-banning military snowflakes.

If that is the case, why are they allowed to have weapons, as long as they are registered with base command, in their on base homes? As I noted in the 2nd part of my comment, it has to do with the weapons being govt property and they don't want them lost or stolen. Not every member of the military is honorable.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know