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

Do they think that if they whine at us louder we will relent and allow them to violate our civil rights for no reason?

Fact Check: Yes, a Student Was Suspended for Not Participating in the Walkout

Jacob’s father, Scott Shoemaker, said his son was just trying to stay neutral – and did nothing wrong.

Our civil rights do not matter to them. That has been made crystal clear

The violated civil rights of the kds shot and killed seemingly mean nothing to you.

That is a crime a person committed, not a gun. Are you firing on all cylinders?

I have told you before I cannot stop crime. Kind of like you trying to keep guns from criminals, neither are going to happen. [/quotYes, thank you. I AM running on all cylinders, but I think mosyt of ours have really bad oil seals. It may surprise you to know that most crime is commited by persons, not for example bears. And around 12000 times a year persons with guns kill somebody, not for ecample by throwing marshmallows at them. Do you begin kto notice a common pattern here. Of course you can't stop crime. But you CAN to some things to stop a lkot of it from hPPENING. aND one thing is controlling guns,, not must throwing up your hands and sying we're powerless. But of course you can oralloy don't give a **** about the people who totally lose their rights and their life by gunshot. And that is one of the most profoundly immoral things I can think of.

Those are the real cicil rights here, not the pretend ones you keep whining about.

around 12000 times a year persons with guns kill somebody, not for ecample by throwing marshmallows at them.

Of course you can't stop crime. But you CAN to some things to stop a lkot of it from hPPENING. aND one thing is controlling guns,, not must throwing up your hands and sying we're powerless.

Their coming after your guns.

Those people would be just as dead if they were killed by knives or bombs.

And actually, when Australia did away with their freedom and took away people's gun rights, the result was a five-year-long robbery spree (both armed and unarmed robbery).

Besides, we already have a background check system to try to prevent criminals from acquiring gun

sceletera wrote:

He has simply come up with what he thinks is a clever way to ignore court rulings that show his opinion to be wrong under the law.

The court rulings show no such thing. They are not even being offered in the context of the discussion here.

sceletera wrote:

Your "facts" are not facts at all.

Yes they are. You are just confounded because you have no answer to them.
Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this. You have failed to address your opponents arguments and dismiss them without any argument of your own.

sceletera wrote:

They are nothing but your uniformed[sic] opinion.

Nope. My views are very-highly informed.
Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this. Your use of ipse dixit and failure to provide supporting evidence when asked points to you not being well informed and your argument not being well thought out.

sceletera wrote:

I will rely on court rulings for reaching my conclusions since it is the courts that decide Constitutionality.

You've already stated that you are not relying on these court rulings to back up your arguments.
Mischaracterization of the statement that was made by your opponent. This was pointed out to you and you persist in using a partial statement out of context. This also shows a lack of well thought out argument on your part.

sceletera wrote:

Court rulings are hardly idle trivia.

They are when they are not being used to address the issue that is being discussed.
Court rulings clearly have a place in an argument about whether something is constitutional or not. Those same court rulings will be used in any future court ruling. Courts have the final say on what is constitutional. Failure to address what is in the court rulings points to weakness in your argument. Dismissing them with your short unsupported declarative statements is not a valid argument.

sceletera wrote:

Your insistence that court rulings that state a ban on assault weapons is constitutional is trivia shows your lack of understanding of how the law and the Constitution actually work.

No it doesn't.

No such lack of understanding either.
Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this. Your statements point out you have no real understanding since you have provided no actual rebuttal.

sceletera wrote:

From the Second Appeals court.

The trivia board is a few doors down from this one.
Not only have you failed to address any issue raised by your opponent you make dismissive comments. This will always result in a failing grade.

Ind. Man Who Fatally Shot Girlfriend After She Rejected His Marriage Proposal Gets 45 Years

A 13-year-old girl in Mississippi has died after allegedly being shot by her nine-year-old brother over a video game, police say.

They said the boy grabbed a gun on Saturday afternoon after his sister would not give up the controller.

He allegedly shot her from behind, and the bullet entered her brain.

A local sheriff announced on Sunday that the teen had died of her injuries in a Memphis hospital. It was unclear how the boy obtained the gun.

It is also unclear what consequences the nine-year-old will face.

"He's just nine," Monroe County Sheriff Cecil Cantrell told the Clarion Ledger.

"I assume he's seen this on video games or TV. I don't know if he knew exactly what this would do. I can't answer that. I do know it's a tragedy."


The children's mother was in another room, feeding other children lunch at the time of the incident.

Police are still investigating the circumstances of the shooting, including how the weapon - a .25 calibre handgun - was accessed.

"This is all new ground for us, we've never dealt with a kid shooting a kid at age nine," Sheriff Cantrell told local press.

Your comments have degenerated to the point, that I can only grade them as I would any student that made similar arguments.
Your debate style and logic deserve a large
F

See the comments below and attempt to correct the errors in your future attempts at discussion.

Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this.

You have failed to address your opponents arguments and dismiss them without any argument of your own.

Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this. Your use of ipse dixit and failure to provide supporting evidence when asked points to you not being well informed and your argument not being well thought out.

Mischaracterization of the statement that was made by your opponent. This was pointed out to you and you persist in using a partial statement out of context.

This also shows a lack of well thought out argument on your part.

Court rulings clearly have a place in an argument about whether something is constitutional or not.

Those same court rulings will be used in any future court ruling.

Courts have the final say on what is constitutional. Failure to address what is in the court rulings points to weakness in your argument.

Dismissing them with your short unsupported declarative statements is not a valid argument.

Unsupported statement. You have provided no evidence in support of this.

Your statements point out you have no real understanding since you have provided no actual rebuttal.

Not only have you failed to address any issue raised by your opponent you make dismissive comments.

This will always result in a failing grade.