Gun Control

[bad_teammate 13132]

20 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

We dont have anything to organize against because we are in power. LOL. 

You make it too easy. 

1.3T spending bill

Trump as president.

Lotta good you guys are doing with that power lol

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

7 minutes ago, Skyline said:

The Parkland kids' arguments are emotional and rational to some extent. MFOL as a whole is arguing for some gun reform, hell they'll accept any reform. Not all of it is based on repealing the 2nd. But there needs to be some give and take here. Dismissing the kids as props doesn't help conservatives. 

Sure, I am all for give and take as long it doesnt encroach on my liberties as gun owner. I will not accept banning of any weapons as an acceptable solution. Because we all know handguns can just as easily be used in these shootings as a semi auto rifle, and I would argue they could be used in just as deadly of a manner as any semi auto rifle. So if we can come up with some middle ground solution, Im all for it. But those marching against the 2nd amendment need to understand people arent just going to hand over their rights to bear arms because a march happened.  

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1.3T spending bill

Trump as president.

Lotta good you guys are doing with that power lol

Im not real happy with the spending, I think it is pathetic how nobody gives a fuck about balancing the budget anymore and running up the debt. But yall are out marching against gun rights, why would I organize a march when Republicans are in power. They know what their constituents want.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I will not accept banning of any weapons as an acceptable solution.

So you do not think any weapons should be banned?

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

So you do not think any weapons should be banned?

Absolutely not. Semi auto rifle ban would accomplish nothing accept encroaching on the gun rights of the 2nd amendment. Rights that "shall not be infringed." 

[maninblack 7974]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you do not think any weapons should be banned?

Nope

[bad_teammate 13132]

11 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Absolutely not. Semi auto rifle ban would accomplish nothing accept encroaching on the gun rights of the 2nd amendment. Rights that "shall not be infringed." 

So a citizen should be able to purchase any weapon that could be manufactured?

[HtownHorn 14488]

51 minutes ago, Skyline said:

The Parkland kids' arguments are emotional and rational to some extent. MFOL as a whole is arguing for some gun reform, hell they'll accept any reform. Not all of it is based on repealing the 2nd. But there needs to be some give and take here. Dismissing the kids as props doesn't help conservatives. 

What are their arguments, it changes daily, based on what network they are doing interviews on. I'm also not quite sure they are having the desired affect you think they are, as the NRA had record fundraising this past month. For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA. He's literally driving people to join the organization, because contrary to his personal beliefs their members aren't killing people, and his rhetoric is repulsive. Hell, even the last CNN interviewer admitted he allowed Hogg to lie multiple times on his show, because he was afraid of interrupting too much. If all you do his scream lies and say 5M+ people like seeing kids die, you have no argument worth listening to. I've yet to hear an honest interview addressing the systemic collapse of government at both the local and federal level that allowed Cruz to purchase a gun, let alone several. Any competent psychologist would have rendered his ability to purchase a gun using NICS impossible. The SRO that stayed outside, even identified Cruz to his boss almost a year before the shooting and not a damn thing was done. There is a complicit group of people in this tragedy and it's not the NRA.

[Fozzz 152]

I’ll favor prioritizing gun control after we dissessamble the empire and refrain from committing daily atrocities overseas. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

What are their arguments, it changes daily, based on what network they are doing interviews on. I'm also not quite sure they are having the desired affect you think they are, as the NRA had record fundraising this past month. For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA. He's literally driving people to join the organization, because contrary to his personal beliefs their members aren't killing people, and his rhetoric is repulsive. Hell, even the last CNN interviewer admitted he allowed Hogg to lie multiple times on his show, because he was afraid of interrupting too much. If all you do his scream lies and say 5M+ people like seeing kids die, you have no argument worth listening to. I've yet to hear an honest interview addressing the systemic collapse of government at both the local and federal level that allowed Cruz to purchase a gun, let alone several. Any competent psychologist would have rendered his ability to purchase a gun using NICS impossible. The SRO that stayed outside, even identified Cruz to his boss almost a year before the shooting and not a damn thing was done. There is a complicit group of people in this tragedy and it's not the NRA.

So wait... you joined the organization after all these years because a kid said things you didn't like? lol yes everyone this is the emotion-free, cold face of calculating reality

What lies has Hogg told? Be specific. You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

[HtownHorn 14488]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So wait... you joined the organization after all these years because a kid said things you didn't like? lol yes everyone this is the emotion-free, cold face of calculating reality

What lies has Hogg told? Be specific. You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

Ask Brian Stelter, he's the one that admitted to letting him lie on his program. I don't fucking care to watch his program, but you probably have/do.  I don't have to have any real arguments, as the Constitution does my talking in regards to gun ownership. Please, please, please, tell your liberal overlords to run on appealing the 2A platform. Do it, chicken shit, tell them you refuse to support their candidacy unless they are devout on this issue.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Lmao, "this kid being mean is driving people to join the NRA" is the new "you calling me racist is turning me into a racist".

 

What a crock of shit. It's amazing how a child is bringing you all to your knees. Chicken shits.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Mo Horn 8807]

Rick Santorum defending his CPR comments on CNN this morning. Just amazing.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Someone joined the NRA because a kid said something bad about guns? Triggered much?  

[Swam@Texas 112]

9 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Weird, because the Constitution grants him the right to peaceful protest, which is what he's doing... and you don't seem to want that... weird...

Not one person here has said he doesn't have the right to peacefully protest. But when he inserts himself into the public arena, you shouldn't be playing the "but he's just a kid who's been through so much you can't dare criticize him" card when he says inherently stupid shit. Seriously, this kid wants the Second Amendment repealed while claiming that a clear backpack is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He calls Trump and Rick Scott vile names but wants them to "do something" by taking away the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, but when his school administration "does something" that somehow adversely affects him he whines about it.

Also, to pretend these kids are organizing this independently -- when the events are bought and paid for by adult special-interest groups -- is a farce. They may hold those opinions, and I'm sure many are passionate about them, but without the adults bankrolling these events they would generate about as much attention as a high school chess team bake sale.

I do think the comments on Hogg's personal appearance are inappropriate.

[Post Oak 20187]

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

What are their arguments, it changes daily, based on what network they are doing interviews on. I'm also not quite sure they are having the desired affect you think they are, as the NRA had record fundraising this past month. For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA. He's literally driving people to join the organization, because contrary to his personal beliefs their members aren't killing people, and his rhetoric is repulsive. Hell, even the last CNN interviewer admitted he allowed Hogg to lie multiple times on his show, because he was afraid of interrupting too much. If all you do his scream lies and say 5M+ people like seeing kids die, you have no argument worth listening to. I've yet to hear an honest interview addressing the systemic collapse of government at both the local and federal level that allowed Cruz to purchase a gun, let alone several. Any competent psychologist would have rendered his ability to purchase a gun using NICS impossible. The SRO that stayed outside, even identified Cruz to his boss almost a year before the shooting and not a damn thing was done. There is a complicit group of people in this tragedy and it's not the NRA.

Haha.  Fraidy cat.  A teenager scared you.

[Swam@Texas 112]

14 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

Haha.  Fraidy cat.  A teenager scared you.

Isn't that what started all of these protests?

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

I like how GOPers are obsessed with outside groups helping organize these rallies yet were perfectly OK with the Koch's creating the Tea Party out of thin air.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Ask Brian Stelter, he's the one that admitted to letting him lie on his program.

So you say that you joined the NRA after hearing David Hogg's statements.

When asked what he said, you tell me to ask someone who isn't even here.

Which loops back to...

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

Sometimes it bothers me that I can predict the CHUDs so well.

This constant callback to Brian Stetler letting Hogg "lie" is a perfect example of how people like you do nothing but consume media (both social and crafted) that is designed to make you angry without giving you actual information. I searched "Hogg lie Stelter" and there is NOTHING in any of it that's specific. Stelter never said he let Hogg lie, he said he didn't bother correcting some facts (the ONLY one mentioned is that Hogg said Dana Loesch was the "CEO" of the NRA, and Stelter didn't correct him). Getting facts wrong isn't lying.

But speaking of lying, HtownHorn, you're lying about something. Either you didn't join the NRA at all, you were already an NRA member or you actually did support the NRA. You said, "For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA." <-- There is a lie in here. Which part is the lie, liar?

There is no way in hell a calm, sane, rational, non-gun-owning moderate joined the NRA because of a teenager who supposedly said things they can't even quote.

If you did, which would be fucking hilarious, it's because you're easily manipulated by people who are actively trying to manipulate you.

Edited March 28, 2018 by bad_teammate

[udaydanceparty 33]

16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what your username was on the Shag, so you can say whatever you want and recreate yourself anew. Use the opportunity wisely.

 

So scared!

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

So scared!

?

Telling someone to act wisely is a threat? How fucked up is your brain, exactly?

Edited March 28, 2018 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 20707]

7 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

Please, please, please, tell your liberal overlords to run on appealing the 2A platform. Do it, chicken shit, tell them you refuse to support their candidacy unless they are devout on this issue.

Lol.  A million instances of people talking about gun control, but if a gun nut hears one person say "get rid of the 2nd amendment" they use that as the official liberal stance.

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Lol.  A million instances of people talking about gun control, but if a gun nut hears one person say "get rid of the 2nd amendment" they use that as the official liberal stance.

I mean, where would we get those kind of nutty ideas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

By JOHN PAUL STEVENSMARCH 27, 2018

 

 

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

 

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018 

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

[Anastasis 23394]

Oh, and the correction cracks me up. I wonder how many hate emails they got from my fellow gun nuts for calling that musket a rifle. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I mean, where would we get those kind of nutty ideas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

By JOHN PAUL STEVENSMARCH 27, 2018

 

 

A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

 

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Correction: March 27, 2018 

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

 

 

How does this contradict what he said? You're quoting one person, just like he mentioned.

There is no real movement to repeal the 2nd. There is no push from within any political power to do so. Even these horrible, lying, deceitful, monstrous shooting victims are calling for "gun control", not a full repeal of the 2nd.

Perhaps Stevens's op-ed will kick-start such a movement, but right now it's basically one somewhat well-known old retired judge who is not actually active in politics in any way.

Hank is completely right, sorry.

[deadshank 24651]

29 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Lol.  A million instances of people talking about gun control, but if a gun nut hears one person say "get rid of the 2nd amendment" they use that as the official liberal stance.

I think if a lot of liberals are truly honest about their position on the 2A and firearms then they would admit that they want all firearms sales to private citizens completely stopped and firearms currently in the hands of private citizens confiscated.  

All this talk about banning  "just AR's" and the like is just the first step.

I have no problem with them wanting that but I don't agree with that position.  I do think that a lot of these types are dishonest about their position.  

[bernorange 8348]

*sigh*

This thread is an abortion.  Ad hominems galore.  Lots of teeth gnashing at the political theater at the fringes.  Very little thoughtful discussion. 

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I like how GOPers are obsessed with outside groups helping organize these rallies yet were perfectly OK with the Koch's creating the Tea Party out of thin air.

Still fucking that "willful disinformation" chicken I guess.  Is this round 3 with this canard?  I've lost track how many times you've wrongly asserted this. Searching the old forum for "aqua buddha kochs tea party" shows me at least two threads where we hashed this out.  Possibly 3 threads, but the google snippets are a bit lacking to be sure.

 

 

 

[bernorange 8348]

I didn't see it while skimming through all the noise in this thread, but New Jersey a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws presently is working on more restrictive laws:

Quote

New Jersey lawmakers are tightening up its already strict gun control laws, empowered by the recent wave of student protests that erupted in response to a Florida mass shooting at a high school that killed 17 people.

This isn’t a case of lawmakers declaring they will debate the issue. The state legislature is already taking action. A variety of gun control bills were approved Monday by the Democratic-controlled State Assembly. The bills must be approved by the state Senate, which is widely expected to happen, before heading to Gov. Philip D. Murphy to sign into law. The state Senate has a Democratic majority. Murphy is also a Democrat.

The gun control efforts underway in New Jersey are striking for their breadth. The half dozen gun control bills approved by the state Senate tackle various aspects of firearms. One bill would ban ammunition capable of penetrating body armor. Another would limit the magazine capacity of guns to 10 rounds. Background checks for private gun sales would be required by another bill, if its signed into law. Perhaps the most controversial is a bill that would require residents to show a “justifiable need” for a permit to carry a gun. If this particular bill passes, an applicant would have to show they had been threatened or subject to attack to get approval for a gun permit.

...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-control-laws-stricter-jersey-161050843.html

[thrillhammer 683]

2 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

Rick Santorum defending his CPR comments on CNN this morning. Just amazing.

rick is a spineless sack of shit.  cowardly weasel.  he is bought and paid for by the nra.  i find no difference between the nra and the mafia.  both pay off politicians for them to turn a blind eye.  our democracy is corrupt.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

5 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

rick is a spineless sack of shit.  cowardly weasel.  he is bought and paid for by the nra.  i find no difference between the nra and the mafia.  both pay off politicians for them to turn a blind eye.  our democracy is corrupt.

Interesting take. How do you feel about Planned Parenthood?

[bad_teammate 13132]

18 minutes ago, deadshank said:

I think if a lot of liberals are truly honest about their position on the 2A and firearms then they would admit that they want all firearms sales to private citizens completely stopped and firearms currently in the hands of private citizens confiscated. 

On what do you base this? Anything from liberals themselves?

You're literally operating from a position of, "I'm not going to bother listening to people, instead I am going to pretend to know what they really want because they are lying."

InfoWars logic

[thrillhammer 683]

30 minutes ago, deadshank said:

I think if a lot of liberals are truly honest about their position on the 2A and firearms then they would admit that they want all firearms sales to private citizens completely stopped and firearms currently in the hands of private citizens confiscated.  

All this talk about banning  "just AR's" and the like is just the first step.

I have no problem with them wanting that but I don't agree with that position.  I do think that a lot of these types are dishonest about their position.  

this is a terribly ignorant take.  ignorant in that you have no clue what you're talking about.  you might as well say you can get syphilis from a doorknob.  fear mongering.

[bad_teammate 13132]

The blonde teevee lady and VikingCrusadeWarrior on Facebook done told me the real truth 'bout them god damn libruls.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/27/michael-ian-black-gun-ownership-slavery/

[bad_teammate 13132]

You will notice that literally no one you guys have quoted advocate banning all guns. Even the examples you actively search for do not match the bogeymen in your fantasy worlds and online echo chambers.

There are undoubtedly people out there who advocate banning and confiscating all guns, just as there are people out there who think we should sell M249 SAWs to 8-year-olds. Being able to find outliers demonstrates nothing.

Edited March 28, 2018 by bad_teammate

[deadshank 24651]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

On what do you base this? Anything from liberals themselves?

You're literally operating from a position of, "I'm not going to bother listening to people, instead I am going to pretend to know what they really want because they are lying."

InfoWars logic

I said it is my opinion.  I have no scientific evidence and  have not polled anyone either. Do you deny their are some that couch their true desires?  

Regarding the supposed position from which operating as you put it, that is complete BS.  You're putting words into my mouth that I did not say no type.  I never said or think that I won't bother listening to people.  I merely offered a personal opinion.  Sure, I could be wrong.  I could be right, too.

You're quite a combative person, BT.    Your blitzkreig replies to anyone that has a differing opinion from you is tiresome.   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I’m a multiple gun owner, (like over 20) and I’m all for sensible gun law reform like expanded background checks and limiting magazine capacities.  

By limiting magazine capacities, you remove the need to ban a particular firearms like the AR-15.  

Also, I’m not advocating banning high capacity magazines altogether. Just prohibit the sale of them going forward.

I know these reforms will not necessarily reduce the incidents of gun violence but it would reduce body counts and therefore save lives.

Also, it’s important to focus on the issues that cause the ridiculous high incidents of gun violence in the United States. I think much of the problem can be attributed to people living in isolation, radicalizing, and lashing out at the world around them.  Unfortunately we tend to write this off as “mental health issues” and ignore the underlying problems.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Do you deny their are some that couch their true desires?  

If you're willing to presume someone is being dishonest in how they present their ideas without having any evidence then you are, by simple reality, not actually going to listen to them. Of course you will hear and read their words in a literal sense, but you will not actually listen.

I do not think many people actively hide their motives and beliefs with regard to guns. They may not give you the entire rundown of their every thought. You might have to ask probing questions to find out every detail, but the idea that any significant number of people on ANY side are actively obfuscating their beliefs is paranoid delusion.

[Bat Guano 359]

20 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

http://www.ssristories.net/school-shootings/

Here is a list of quite a few.

Another good write up

https://www.corbettreport.com/medicated-to-death-ssris-and-mass-killings/

The anti-depressants and ADHD ect.. are way over prescribed. The doctors no longer treat the underlying cause, but instead sell pills because that is what they have been thought in school. Pharma controls the studies, the students are tought to treat based on the results of the studies, thus, pills will solve all these different complex mental issues. 

The FBI and the armed guards at the school both failed when it came to this most recent case. Instead of pushing more government intervention, they should be pushing back on the failures of their local and federal governments to properly investigate this kid. But the other underlying cause was medication given, instead of figuring out why this kid was "emotionally fragile" and taking the necessary steps to help him function in society.

It's the same thing with guys coming back from war with PTSD. They are given pills that actually cause it to get worse, and eventually they blow their brains out. 

Some good talks Joe Rogan has had with people about the issues. Cognitive therapy, exercise and meditation seems to work better than pills that manipulate the delicate brain chemistry. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO34cVBQWBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnA_CNYU3yc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPJkI4P2bXY

 

Perhaps there's a connection. Certainly worth looking into with actual controlled studies.

Are you saying there is some kind of solution to the school shooting problem here? Because if so you're going to have to be a hell of a lot more specific. Do we ban SSRIs? Regulate their use? How? Do we control access to weapons for kids on SSRIs? Or coming off SSRIs? Or what?

In other words, do you have an actual solution? Or is this just hand-waving to deflect from the topic?

[Skyline 325]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

So wait... you joined the organization after all these years because a kid said things you didn't like? lol yes everyone this is the emotion-free, cold face of calculating reality

What lies has Hogg told? Be specific. You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

I watched Stelter's interview about the interview. Hogg mis-characterized Loesch's role at the NRA and Stelter interrupted to correct him. It was stuff like that and Stelter sometimes didn't interrupt. 

[Chrispy 132]

I say we ban guns, I mean the government was so successful with drug war and prohibition. So what if a thriving black market develops? That’s going to be a whole lot of fun for people like myself, you know, that follow the law. 

Also, I suggest we continue to prescribe these psychotropic drugs to developing brains. I’m sure the lack of empathy and dissociative characteristics that develop are merely temporary symptoms that will be phased out by the evolutionary process. Let’s just give it a couple hundred years fellas. 

[Hank Kingsley 20707]

1 hour ago, deadshank said:

I think if a lot of liberals are truly honest about their position on the 2A and firearms then they would admit that they want all firearms sales to private citizens completely stopped and firearms currently in the hands of private citizens confiscated.  

 

I do not want to stop the sale of firearms or confiscate from responsible owners.  I think if you were more honest,  you'd admit you have a lazy, bullshit opinion to convince yourself and others that we need to just stop talking about gun control. 

 

 

[thrillhammer 683]

55 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Interesting take. How do you feel about Planned Parenthood?

since access to both abortion and guns are constitutional rights, a valid comparison. let's go ahead and compare their two budgets.  in 2015  the nra paid wayne lapierre $5.1 million. planned parenthood paid cecile richards $524k.  nice.   if you wanted to compare their campaign contributions this won't end well for you.

[Skyline 325]

3 hours ago, Swam@Texas said:

Not one person here has said he doesn't have the right to peacefully protest. But when he inserts himself into the public arena, you shouldn't be playing the "but he's just a kid who's been through so much you can't dare criticize him" card when he says inherently stupid shit. Seriously, this kid wants the Second Amendment repealed while claiming that a clear backpack is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He calls Trump and Rick Scott vile names but wants them to "do something" by taking away the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, but when his school administration "does something" that somehow adversely affects him he whines about it.

Also, to pretend these kids are organizing this independently -- when the events are bought and paid for by adult special-interest groups -- is a farce. They may hold those opinions, and I'm sure many are passionate about them, but without the adults bankrolling these events they would generate about as much attention as a high school chess team bake sale.

I do think the comments on Hogg's personal appearance are inappropriate.

We're in agreement that comments about Hogg's appearance and age are wholly inappropriate. But we should still get the facts right. Hogg does not support repealing the 2nd amendment. Here are his comments about it:

Quote

What a lot of the media and especially Fox News has messed up with me is they’ve made it seem like I’m trying to take away people’s guns, that I’m against the Second Amendment. My father is a retired FBI agent. I have guns in my house. I’m not against the Second Amendment… I’m trying to push for common sense gun reform and mental illness reform so we can make sure that these individuals that have a criminal background that are mentally unstable and have a history of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun…

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this. We simply want to save lives and democracy, please stand with us.

 

Here's his statements on what he actually wants:

Quote

Universal background checks, raising the age requirement to purchase a gun to 21, and laws blocking anyone with a history of mental health disorders or a criminal background or history or domestic violence from getting a firearm.“I would say that it’s good to have your Second Amendment rights,” Hogg said. “It’s good to believe that you can protect yourself and protect those around you, but I want people to acknowledge the fact that we do have a major gun violence problem in this country one that’s not going away.”

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Gun owners who hate the NRA.

Non-gun owners joining the NRA.

 

we live in interesting times

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

16 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

since access to both abortion and guns are constitutional rights, a valid comparison. let's go ahead and compare their two budgets.  in 2015  the nra paid wayne lapierre $5.1 million. planned parenthood paid cecile richards $524k.  nice.   if you wanted to compare their campaign contributions this won't end well for you.

You missed the point. 

"The double standard is clear: When Democrats work on behalf of a special interest that aborts millions of children, they are doing so from a place of conscience and ideological purity. When Republicans argue in favor of Second Amendment rights, it is because they have been bought off by a disfavored lobbying group looking to profit from carnage."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/26/if-nra-owns-republicans-planned-parenthood-owns-democrats-christian-schneider-column/372679002/

"In fact, since 2012, Planned Parenthood alone has donated virtually the same amount ($2.6 million) to individual candidates as the NRA ($2.7 million)."

To be fair though "The NRA has, however, spent more in third-party independent ads that either criticize Democrats or support Republicans." 

But to also be fair, the NRA is private and doesnt receive government funding. Is there anything more corrupt than Planned Parenthood getting money from the government and then spending it on political candidates?

Also of note from the article: "57% of respondents said mass shootings in America are more a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health problems, while only 28% blamed inadequate gun control laws."

[Chrispy 132]

11 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

You missed the point. 

"The double standard is clear: When Democrats work on behalf of a special interest that aborts millions of children, they are doing so from a place of conscience and ideological purity. When Republicans argue in favor of Second Amendment rights, it is because they have been bought off by a disfavored lobbying group looking to profit from carnage."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/26/if-nra-owns-republicans-planned-parenthood-owns-democrats-christian-schneider-column/372679002/

"In fact, since 2012, Planned Parenthood alone has donated virtually the same amount ($2.6 million) to individual candidates as the NRA ($2.7 million)."

To be fair though "The NRA has, however, spent more in third-party independent ads that either criticize Democrats or support Republicans." 

But to also be fair, the NRA is private and doesnt receive government funding. Is there anything more corrupt than Planned Parenthood getting money from the government and then spending it on political candidates?

Also of note from the article: "57% of respondents said mass shootings in America are more a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health problems, while only 28% blamed inadequate gun control laws."

Oh, come on. Are you telling me that people are more concerned with the individual pulling the trigger and not personifying inanimate objects? Get that drivel out of here. You’re starting to infringe on my utopian ideals man. 

 

[deadshank 24651]

40 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I do not want to stop the sale of firearms or confiscate from responsible owners.  I think if you were more honest,  you'd admit you have a lazy, bullshit opinion to convince yourself and others that we need to just stop talking about gun control. 

 

 

Perhaps you are not one of the people that I was talking about.  To boot, I never said that we need to stop talking about gun control.  Did I?  

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

8 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Perhaps you are not one of the people that I was talking about.  To boot, I never said that we need to stop talking about gun control.  Did I?  

When you say "I think everyone telling me x is lying, and they really want y," how is it you think a conversation about x is even possible? You aren't having a conversation about x, you are having a conversation about y, because you think that's what the other party is doing, even if they really are wanting to talk about x. Therefore, you don't have to say, "we need to stop talking about x," because you were never talking about x to begin with.

Edited March 28, 2018 by NameAlreadyInUse

[hayden_horn 11360]

50 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I do not want to stop the sale of firearms or confiscate from responsible owners.  I think if you were more honest,  you'd admit you have a lazy, bullshit opinion to convince yourself and others that we need to just stop talking about gun control. 

 

 

I tend to agree with this. And as I opined on the old site, gun advocates need to get in on this conversation or they may find themselves without a seat at the negotiating table in the future.