Left Wing Directed and Funded Teens Descend on DC for Anti-Gun ‘March for Our Lives’
A march first announced by students who attend the Florida high school where 17 people were shot and killed by a man with a history of mental health issues last month has morphed into a worldwide anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Trump protest directed, promoted, and funded by left-wing adults and adult-led organizations.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
90 visitors
Let them come to my house, I'll show them guns...
Young people didn't care all that much before, and they don't care all that much now....they more concerned about being on social media with their friends. I mean, who is paying all the expenses, including the fancy buses that they are transported around in? The above picture smacks of well organized anti-gun opposition by the left. Where's the outrage about the inept lack of action and follow up by law enforcement and the FBI during this incident?
It's very well-organized and funded by Hollywood types, SJWs, and politicians.
Apparently the memories of Koch sponsored bus caravans full of tea party traitors have faded.
Please specify exactly where in comment 1.1.2 I exhibited hatred of "people exercising their First Amendment rights". Your comment clearly indicates that you didn't comprehend the fact that I quoted portions of various articles to answer someone's question.
What the hell are you talking about?
Because the left wingers are exploiting young kids....again.....as their pawns; their little foot soldiers, who just in it for the holiday, and being able to act out.
Hey Brother, how you doing? (Sorry for the OT post folks). You feeling better? All patched up?
Soft diets include ice-cream...just sayin.. LOL Good to hear you are doing well. Hang in there. Doing well here. I ride pretty much all winter too, but now it's starting to warm up a bit so time to change the oil and get a new back tire.
Semper Fi.
Links please?
Skirting CoC {SP}
Yup, it's the thing to do, the place to be and the msm has promoted it from day 1
I am glad you are on the mend. Hang in there.
Well thanks, had to make a run to the store for that exact ice-cream....(dick).. LOL As to tires... Been using Pirelli for years, good tire.. But the shop I uses keeps giving me a "high grip" tire....which is great but they only last two years...tops... I'll check the Dunlop, see what they have... Thanks for the tip Buddy...
The first question that must be asked - Who paid for all of that?
They hate them because these kids are better educated than they are and well spoken. These kids don't ridicule higher education and they understand the constitution and their rights far better than the average gun toting, bible clutching anti-American theocrat who imagines they need a stockpile of AR-15's to fight the coming fantasy "war on Christians".
And, you forgot to add, there is no way we can disagree with them, right?
Do you have any evidence of that or is it pure projection?
Anyone can disagree with them, if, they want to appear narrow minded.
They have the right, afforded to them via the same constitution, that many of you falsely claim
guarantee your , and so many others 2nd favorite one.
.
To criticize the motivation of school children in the richest country in the world, one of the supposed leaders, for protesting against being mowed down in a place called a "school", a supposed "safe" haven in our society, is plain ole ignorant.
.
Parents and children should not have to be in fear for their life for going to a government mandated gathering place, EVER!
WTF people, if our kids can't feel safe in our own schools, WE ALL HAVE A PROBLEM!
.
Denying it and questioning the motivation, Does NOT solve it, it only delays the solution.
So, Students rallying to take away another right, guaranteed in the constitution. At what point do we stop blaming the instrument and start blaming the operator? Oh, right, that's harder than taking away someone else's rights.
I read today how Venezuela has now banned private ownership of firearms by their citizens. Venezuela used to be the shining light of South America, now just a shithole with a dictator....and these leaders were voted in.....and then started removing the rights of their citizens. And you are okay with the people behind the kids using that methodology?
The rest of your comment stinks of the pompous, arrogant attitude that cost the left the White House.
A lot of these kids will be voting age soon and I'm sure voting out every single republicon they can!
As will I!
No, not a single one of those students advocated for banning all guns. They merely suggest that the NRA and some ammosexuals are being unreasonable by objecting to universal background checks, reasonable limits on assault weapons, limits on magazine capacity and a ban on bump stocks. In no way does that take away any right guaranteed by the constitution as even Justice Scalia concluded the 2nd amendment is not limitless.
DP,
You do realize, don't you, that the ridiculous "gun as penis" reference comes directly from Sigmund Freud, a supposed psychologist, who has been totally discredited since the 1950's?
Universal background checks require a universal firearms registry in order to be enforced. Furthermore, the Federal Government, by regulating Intrastate Commerce, would be in direct violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Government only has jurisdiction in cases of Interstate Commerce, which is why they are allowed to require background checks from dealers. Private residents of a State, conducting a sale of firearms within that State, are only subject to State regulation. No State legislator is going to be stupid enough to set up a universal registry or to require background checks on private sales, at least of long guns. Some States, mostly Blue States, already have such registration, but no more are going to set one up. The legislators really don't want to go back to chasing ambulances for a living.
Well organized opposition to being murdered in their classrooms . . . .
Thank you!
Every person I know and have ever known is against murder in the classroom, and everywhere else for that matter.
Not a thing to do with gun control being proposed.
If it weren't for all the insults, deflections, ridicule and threats that went along with "disagreeing" with them you might have a point. But you don't.
It kinda interferes with their fascist aims.
Sure you will tough guy.
He wants to show his gun to teenage girls.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
This is the type of argument they have been reduced to.
Brietbart, OK, nuff said.
I understand that Breitbart has lost over 50% of its readership since Trump was elected. Apparently the crazies are too much even for most of the gullible wingnuts.
.
They've also lost 90% of their advertisers.....
Looks like more people there than at the inauguration. (which was funded by the right wing)
Link please
Inaugurations in this country are funded by supporters of the President elect. Are you suggesting that Trump's supporters are the left?
The left just thinks it is different for Trump than all other Presidents.
I suppose it sounds evil to them to say the facts--that Presidents' parties and supporters usually pay for inaugurations. If, of course, it is a GOP President.
Are you talking about the actual inauguration ceremony or all the parties that follow?
"Taxpayers pick up the tab for the inaugural swearing-in, security and the parade.
But it's private donors who pay for all those swank inaugural balls and celebrations."
And what does that have to do with the radical left paying for demonstrations & protests?????
The whole gist of the article implies that liberals are organizing these protests as if that's a bad thing. It's not a bad thing to protest in this country. Conservative groups organize and fund protests too although these are often of the white supremacy type of protests.
you state that as if it is a bad thing
cause
IT IS
He states that, but provides no support for it. More of 'I want to say their bad, so I'll throw something against the wall in hopes it sticks......'
The right to protest in this country is a good thing. It's our Constitutional right. You really think that's bad?
Pretty sure he was referring to the white supremacist part.
SMH
They, too, have a right to protest. The bill of rights is not designed to protect vast majorities from agreeing with each other.
Ooh, what a tough guy you are!
His house, his right.
His right to do what, exactly?
How long until this thread is shut down? So typical of your threads. You lay one turd and then disappear.
Hopefully Trump will shoot some skeet this weekend down in Mar-A-Logo miles away from these gun grabbing junior commies.
We need to see more of trump's weekend skeet-shooting partners in the media.
We would if Trump shot one of his shooting partners in the face and the dude apologized from his hospital bed for getting in the way of his Fuhrer's shot. The apology would have to be sufficiently obsequious......."You're the best shot ever, I feel privileged to have taken one in the face for you!"
Unreal how he apologized to Shotgun Dick for his face getting in the way of Dick's bullets.
I am inspired by these young people. These types of seeded articles and comments posted along with the subtle threats towards these kids are just more evidence that the NRA has infected our society beyond reason.
This seed makes me sad because the only objective is to dismiss and discredit the deaths that happened in Parkland and other places.
So it's OK to exploit young people for a political agenda?
I don't think you give these kids enough credit. My bet is that they are quite aware of the different interest groups that are aligning themselves with them and against them.
There are different ways to move an agenda. They have been given a platform to speak their mind and let our leaders know what they want. The grown ups including their own parents have failed them by voting in leaders who are greedy and lazy.
Let them have their day. I personally am proud that they are able to form ideas and messages. I've been a little worried how the next generation was going to lead based on some of the ridiculous actions happening on college campuses.
These high school kids have more maturity and composure than the young adults in our colleges these days.
I have been saying for the past several years that those that are now in High School will be the next leadership of this nation... yet, I am a wee bit disappointed in that many did not understand what standing with Parkland students meant. As many thought by walking out they were making a stand for those that can no longer stand for themselves - and that the movement was about making 'their' schools safe .. yet it is the banning of weapons that is the goal - exposing the mentally ill, even though less than 1% of annual mass shootings are done by the mentally ill..
Young people have 'walked' out of their schools without a full understanding of what the current movement is about, as many that support Black Lives Matter having never read their mission statement on their website.
The young people are idealists, and really have NO agenda but to have their voices heard - which is being taken advantage of by the powers that be ('their' movement has been high jacked) .. Hollywood was quick to get involved by donating millions to the students 'cause' - I saw an interview with Oprah on Ellen .. I believe George & Amal Clooney were the first to pledge 500k back in February
I have a son that is a Junior in High School .. he knows that banning weapons will not stop the murders that take place in 'their' schools, and that making 'their' schools safe from an assailant is much simpler that it made out to be. (I am involved in trying to make the entry to 'our' schools a buzz in policy - this way if an individual has NO business at the school .. they are denied entrance) .. a week ago Friday, a gun was brought to my sons high school by a student .. the Resource officer confronted the student before he was able to enter the building - shots were fired, the suspect tried to run the officer over and a high speed chase ensued .. suspect is in custody, yet the resource officer is on administrative leave, pending investigation for discharging his weapon ... the suspect tossed his gun and drugs out of the vehicle next to an assisted living home - and is now claiming racial bias for the incident (I question just how important it is to keep 'our' school safe, when the resource officer cannot do his/her job)
I too am impressed with the students .. yet sadly it does not appear to be their movement any longer. It is no longer about 'their' schools and safety .. it is about guns and the banning there of!
I will happily change my opinion of what is taking place in DC today ... but as long a the NRA, guns and the mentally ill are the boogey men - there is no reason to change it ...
Change through Blame is an interesting concept for sure!
Seems like the kids are driving the agenda. I wonder if any of this generation of teens will ever vote for a Republican?
Black people and teenagers are so scary, aren't they? How dare they think they have a right to life!
I suspect these kids know exactly why they're marching and exactly why they boycotted schools even in states like Texas which promised to retaliate against any students who joined these marches.
It's also not clear what the BLM mission statement has to do with the topic or why she has any trouble with it at all. Is she saying that black folks shouldn't fight for racial justice or shouldn't be concerned that deadly force is disproportionately used against them?
Skirting CoC {SP} .. my oldest son is black, and got involved with Black Lives Matter in Seattle, he came home broken and confused over the hate .. my youngest son is a 'white' Junior in High School, I live this conversation daily - so spare me the one liner deep thoughts ...
Thanks
Try asking.. I know, foreign concept - I realize I should not have brought Black Lives Matter into the subject - it was a 'knee jerk' reaction, just like your response to my comment..
Yet it speaks to the confusion of what these movements stand for .. the message is unclear to many...
Thanks B ..
Hope your daughter gets well soon .. bummer to be sick on spring break..
Sounds like he was exposed to the injustice that other folks experience. I can see why he'd find that upsetting.
Off Topic {SP}
.
Only to right-wingers and racists. Those are the only folks I've ever heard object to BLM or to their mission.
She's the one who deflected to an irrelevant issue. Moreover she made no effort to justify her effort to denigrate the motives of these kids who have very good reason to be concerned about the safety of themselves and their friends.
It was an absurd and disrespectful comment at its core even before she made the racist tangent. It seems right wingers and gun nuts are doing their best to discredit these kids but I suspect the kids will win in the long run.
Why would anyone assume any "other agendas" would be involved anyway? The kids have been very clear about their concerns and their concerns are obviously legitimate.
The only reason for anyone to make comments about BLM, George Soros, or any of the other wingnut rhetoric would be to denigrate the motives and intellect of these kids. I suspect these kids will notice and remember that, and they'll remember exactly where those disrespectful comments came from.
Next time you are in this neck of the woods, hit me up, would be happy to buy you lunch... pretty sure you have my number.
(And yes, that's a sincere offer)
Thanks for the invite MrFrost. (yes I do still have it)
Welcome!
He would only "know" those false NRA notions if they were being fed to him.
No, the seed seeks to disagree with them something the left implies will not be tolerated
That is your opinion. I see it a different way.
There is really no need for you to say that. I could post the same thing every time you make a comment. We post our opinions - that is taken for granted
That is your opinion. I see it differently.........
They are fostering an environment for a discussion, you are promoting the opposite... Get it?
Most teenagers don't have a lot of money (unless they inherited it like a lot of right wing moneybags do) so yes, they do need for someone to pay their way to Washington D.C.
My guess is that their parents or other family are paying most of it, but if other organizations want to fund the event, fine with me.
I would not be surprised if some Bloomberg money is backing these gun grabbers. He likes people to be unarmed when he orders his gestapo to stop and frisk.
You know he has nothing.
Thank you for finding that link. I knew I'd read about Bloomberg's involvement in funding this protest.
To help the Internet illiterate navigate, here's a link to what Everytown is about and who started it:
Fail. Internet search engines can be your friend. See comment 6.2.8 . And before you try to personally attack me again, check the footnotes - WSJ and WaPo. You're welcome.
You better keep an eye on me too, Deano, I found myself in a 'deep state' again last night!
Please familiarize yourself with NT's CoC #1, because you are over-simplifying what constitutes a personal attack:
So, let's say that Bloomburg is funding the MARCH.
Then, let's also say that …
"The NRA and its Republican Pimps and Whores are the donors and recipients of the blood money that funds the murders of children!"
So, which is a better investment?
Really??
How much did the NRA pay to buy the presidency of Donald Trump?
It seems to me that Breitbart is owned as much by Bannon as it is by the NRA.
Yeah? So what? How much money did the NRA put into the election to buy Congress and, the White House? Donald Trump received 21 million from the NRA, they own him, Rubio received 3.3 million for his campaign and, McCain received about 12 million, so, how much did the rest of Congressional Republicans receive from the NRA? At least these kids are using the money for a good cause and, there isn't a one of them that is calling for the end of the Second Amendment, just better gun regulations and, the end of an AR-15 being accessible to someone like the Parkland shooter.
Still none of you NRA types can tell me why you need an AR-15 for home defense when a pistol is better for that or, a shotgun or, why you think you need one for hunting, since it does so much damage to what you are hunting. Lame excuses don't count.
My esteem for the man just went up tenfold despite the fact that he's rather conservative. I suspect most other mayors and ex-mayors share the exact same concern as him, but at least he's using his money to do good because he can.
On the other side we have the NRA and the GOP. That alone speaks volumes - one side supports safe cities and the other side doesn't give a crap about the high level of gun violence in our society.
You've been given the same Wikipedia quotes twice - once by XDm and once by me. IF you had looked at the footnotes as I suggested, you would have seen that the quotes came directly from left-wing articles.
Actually it is.
I hope he did.
Safe cities like San Francisco? Full of illegal aliens, at least one of whom shot and killed someone?
Safe like THAT?
LMFAO!
I looked here and don't even see the NRA listed. I do see lots of labor unions and Soros donating almost exclusively to Democrats. So, since, by your definition, they are woned by these contributors, what exactly do they have to do?
Seems pretty nefarious, doesn't it? Must be tough having to toe the line for them whenever they call......
You should have looked a little harder. This is just for 2018.
It's campaigns, plural. It's just another trick left wingers like to pull to exaggerate the NRA's influence. They total lifetime contributions without admitting that's what they did. So they point to the 12 million John McCain has received, without admitting it count's every election cycle since the dawn of time, which is when McCain started running.
In context, Rubio's received 3.3 million from the NRA out of over 200 million he's raised.
So, Wow!!!!!! Less than 2% of his donations came from the NRA. You got him!
The point is, they are beholden to the NRA because of the contributions, time to get new people in Congress and, get the NRA out of Congress.
The NRA holds no seats in Congress, and people are completely free to elect new representatives at any election.
Seems like the majority of the voting public doesn't want new restrictive gun laws.
And?
Can the NRA legally donate to political campaigns?
If so, then you have no reason to complain
Quinnipiac University Poll. March 3-5, 2018. N=1,122 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
"Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?"
9/15 & earlier: "Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
No answer
3/3-5/18
Republicans
Democrats
Independents
Oops.
Actually, I do, it's called the First Amendment, you know that amendment that comes BEFORE the Second Amendment?
So you would argue that since pro abortion groups spend about as much as the NRA, it's time to get new people in Congress and get those who take money from pro-abortion groups out?
Oops?
So if there isn't a tidal wave of election upsets, and no new laws are passed, what then?
Didn't the numbers show roughly the same thing after almost all mass shootings?
Well, of course he wouldn't.
It is only bad if a conservative supports something. Then it is HORRIBLE!!!
Complaining about legal activities just because YOU personally don't like them is futile.
I doubt these kids were directed by left or right wing. I think they are tired of school shootings, left and right. This is likely to be the largest march in American history, politicians take note, you can disagree with them, but to ignore them will be political suicide.
Brietbart? Really? If you want factual and unbiased reporting, brietbart is literally the last place you should look...
.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy to racism (“Then you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard?”). Breitbart has been accused of publishing fake news for the purpose of a political agenda. (7/18/2016)
Update: As of 8/17/16 Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become Donald Trumps campaign’s chief executive. This move ensures that Breitbart will become the official media outlet and propaganda wing for Donald Trump’s Presidential bid.
Update: After the election 2016 Stephen Bannon was named Adviser to President-Elect Donald Trump.
Update: 4/25/17 Breitbart has been denied Senate Press Credentials .
Update: 8/18/2017 Ousted White House adviser Steve Bannon returns as executive chairman of Breitbart News
Source:
.
What does your cute graph have to do with the subject?
Nothing, as usual.
Children are being exploited and it's OK?
Someone posted a link from brietbart, I was pointing out that it is extremely biased. Got a problem with it?
David Hogg is hardly "frightened, devastated". He's never met a CNN camera and host he hasn't liked.
By the way, these rallies may have started out as "protesting the [Parkland] murders", but they've morphed into voter registration promotions, anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-NRA rallies funded and supported by Hollywood elites, NAN, NAACP, and politicians.
By the way, these rallies may have started out as "protesting the [Parkland] murders", but they've morphed into voter registration promotions, anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-NRA rallies funded and supported by Hollywood elites, NAN, NAACP, and politicians.
Yeah … it's a FIRST AMENDMENT THINGY!
Think of it as a COALITION OF DECENCY!
David Hogg (age, unknown) is worried about the First Amendment as it pertains to plastic backpacks and tampons.
Are you demanding to see his birth certificate? Grammar school transcripts?
Let me walk you through the significance of such a "worry"; while some see plastic backpacks and tampons as the point of such a concern …
It actually refers to THE NEED FOR A SCHOOL KID TO HAVE TO WALK INTO HIS OR HER SCHOOL IN LITERAL TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE SOME SHIT-FOR-BRAINS WITH A GUN MIGHT ALSO BE WALKING IN.
And you actually knew that … but chose to misrepresent the obvious because of what others of us actually know you knew.
Not at all. However, I find it strange that such a vocal and well-known young person's age and year of birth is unclear. Per Vox and Miami Herald (see footnotes) ...
David Miles Hogg (born c. 2000 / 2001)
He has been a target of several conspiracy theories and verbal attacks falsely claiming that he is a crisis actor . [7] [8]
On Jim Hoft’s pro-Trump, conspiracy-minded website, Gateway Pundit, Lucian Wintrich performed a hatchet job on David Hogg, suggesting that he was “heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script”. Wintrich once told the Guardian that he learned about the perfidy of the left while attending Bard College. In his new piece, he claimed that because Hogg’s father works for the FBI, he may well be part of a broader anti-Trump conspiracy.
The only reason to wonder about his date of birth would be so as to engage in a conspiracy theory.
People are shooting up schools and killing kids on a regular basis, and it's ok?
Tell that to left-wing Vox and Miami Herald.
Weren't you folks also claiming that Hogg wasn't even a Florida resident but lived in California? You seem to pull all these nutty conspiracy theories out of your ass and it's rather amusing that you think they have any relevance to the topic of mass shootings in schools. I guess your side must be quite desperate to deflect the topic to irrelevancies.
That's a funny comment. Even CNN, Hogg's favorite, should have been able to verify his DOB and have someone add it to Wikipedia. Doing so would surely shut up the conspiracy theorists you're talking about.
Is there any particular reason why you singled me out, Skrekk? I've never said that David Hogg wasn't a FL resident. However, it's common knowledge that he and his family lived in CA before moving to FL.
More like a coalition of hate.
Just the fact that you seem rife with irrelevant conspiracy theories on this issue, some of which are dumber than others. How old Hogg is, who his father is, where he took his vacations, all of that nonsense has literally nothing to do with the issue......all you folks are trying to do is deflect away from the real issue by attacking a photogenic and well-spoken messenger.
Questioning is a rational thing to do. More people should try it instead of assuming things about people they don't know.
Or at least questioning the merit of loony and irrational conspiracy theories is a rational thing to do. Unless you're a right winger of course in which case it's totally rational to think that Hillary runs an international pedophile ring from the basement of a pizza parlor which lacks a basement. Gullibly believing such blithering nonsense is what will qualify you for a top position in the Trump regime.
I don't pay attention to either right or left conspiracy theories, so find another target. Have a great Sunday.
An interesting claim given that you think random details of David Hogg's life have some relevance to the issue of school shootings or gun regulation. You seem to think such silly and moronic deflections aren't noticed by sane people.
You and every other right winger have very good reason to fear these new and enlightened voters. They'll never forget which party is owned by the NRA.
And Skrekk 8.1.22
Bravo. You're on a roll with making personal insults today.
IMPASSE.
Obviously worth way more than these children's lives to the republicons and the NRA.
SOS,DD
Yes and if you'll excuse the pun - the 'right' wing/gop are owned lock, stock and barrel by the NRA. They have so much blood on their hands.
When these young ones vote - you can bet they'll vote blue. No wonder the republicons are especially screechy and hateful lately, way more so than usual.
So true - more dead kids - more blood on republicon/NRA hands.
Well, if we're going to tinker with the 2nd Amendment, why not tinker with the 1st also? I mean, once you've started, everything is game, right?
The day the NRA or the GOP shoots someone, then you MIGHT have a point.
Until then, nothing but blather.
Nah, it wouldn't shut you folks up, remember, you all still say Obama was born in Kenya despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Unless you've got proof that he wasn't a student at Parkland why don't you STFU with your snide innuendo?
What you got in mind, exactly? And instead of tinkering with the 2d, why not just read the whole thing that starts out "a well-regulated militia...." A bunch of gun freaks who want to strut around with their ARs is neither "well-regulated" nor a "militia" even if they imagine they are.
HA always has his cry-baby fake-victim whine handy.
See # 1.3.1
Apparently Breitbart is circling the drain and has lost 90% of its advertisers and over 50% of its readership.
Feel free to miss the fresh energy and determination coming from the kids. Feel free to pretend they are being manipulated by the 'left'. Feel free to ignore the NRA funded activities and political spending that has brought us to this point in time while you focus on Bloomberg. You can be surprised when they hit 18 and start voting.
The NRA hasn't done anything more than protect "Legal" U.S. citizens as to "Constitutional Rights", whether it be "Legal" manufacturing, "Legal" sales or "Legal" Ownership..........Period !
You left something out in your sentence.... "for a profit".
Background checks are only for the "Legal" folks.
I loves me this "Anti-Trump" shit that's being thrown about on this issue. Have we never had any Presidents before Trump ?
You said "They're legal", well, you are correct, that is as long as they don't break the law. All good gun owners are legal until they break the law, then they become the bad guys with guns. The young man involved in the Parkland shooting was a "legal" gun owner until he broke the law by shooting up the school.
There have been laws on the books for decades, decades, decades, decades and decades for those that break the "Law".
The biggest Law of them all has always been, "Thou Shalt Not KILL" ! That law has been around before the United States of America was even founded.
Your Point ?
Galen,
I found this on the internet some time back. Even though it's attributed to Jefferson, I doubt that he said it. The word choice is wrong for the 18th Century. In any case it makes good sense and answers your comment perfectly.
"The remedy for evil men is not the abrogation of the rights of law abiding citizens. The remedy for evil men is the gallows." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Left Wing Directed And Funded Teens Descend On DC For Anti-Gun ‘March For Our Lives’"
As opposed to Right-Wing-Legislator-NRA-PIMPS & Political Whores Who Say "Your Kids Die -- We Don't Care!"
AND WHAT EXACTLY WILL THIS LEFTIST LED DEMONSTRATION BY CONFUSED YOUTH ACCOMPLISH?
Well, their immediate goal is banning bump stocks. Do you support this, or are bump stocks a necessary part of people's right to own guns for protection?
AND WHAT EXACTLY WILL THIS LEFTIST LED DEMONSTRATION BY CONFUSED YOUTH ACCOMPLISH?
Confused youth?
Many have registered to vote at the rallies this morning; many adults are at the rallies …
Those who repudiate youth who are involving themselves in peaceful protest …
ARE THE ONES CONFUSED.
But please, continue to make statements as ignorant and insensitive as some seen in this thread as they reveal the source of the fucked-up "priorities" of those who post them.
skirting the CoC [ph]
Good font choice … despite the rhetoric it spells out.
So they've already accomplished something, great. You getting this Gregger?
I was referring to Jeff Sessions.
It seems to me that some "confused youths" demonstrated back in the sixties and, because of that we ended the Vietnam war and, got the Civil Rights Act passed. I think you are still underestimating the power of youth in this country. Their parents vote, even if they aren't able to vote in this election, their parents will be voting in this election, do you think those parents will vote Republican this time around or, do you think they will vote against anyone who has NRA ties? 114 seats are up for grabs, how many of those seats do you think will remain in Republican hands after the election?
I think you blow the gun law bit all out of proportion.
You seem to think demonstrations make a difference.
Did Occupy make a difference?
Did that take place back in the sixties? No. What I am seeing is that unlike Occupy, these kids have something more important to protest about protecting, namely their lives and, the lives of kids in the future. You don't think that's worth protecting? Children's lives? How sad.
That's just another one of the incredible leaps the left makes when faced with opposition.
You and I don't agree on the METHODS to stop, or help to stop, gun violence, and you just ASSSUME that the right is FOR gun deaths, which is really, really stupid and not based in reality.
I haven't read one freaking thing on here where someone supports shooting kids.
it is all in your brain.
When you support the rights to own an AR-15 over the right of a kid to attend school without worrying over some idiot with an AR-15 coming into the school to shoot it up, just because someone made him mad or, 'cause he thinks it would be cool, then you don't support the safety of the kids. In other words you want to protect your right to own any kind of gun over protecting kids.
Mac,
Just because they're registering to vote doesn't mean they're not confused. They're young, inexperienced and highly emotional, and yet they want laws made on the basis on their over emotional confusion. Laws made based on emotional trauma always turn out to be bad laws, aimed in the wrong direction and failing to solve the problem that caused them to be made.
Inexperienced? When was the last time you were in school and being shot at by someone with a semi-automatic rifle?
Let them come to my house, I'll show them guns...
Statements such as this are just grist for the anti-gun movement and make me as a gun owner wonder if they're not right.
Some of you need to turn on your televisions, switch away from Fox …
And see what's happening in the streets of America …
… IT'S THE REAL "MAKE-AMERICA-GREAT-AGAIN" MOVEMENT!
A survivor from Parkland just got so emotional that she puked on stage in front of the world, then jumped right back on the horse. This is an amazing protest. We were going to go, but decided against it. Good thing, it appears they are at full capacity in DC. One for the history books.
I wonder if even one of these kids will ever vote for a Republican in their entire life? I suspect the NRA and the GOP have unwittingly led an entire generation to the light.
She may be pregnant.
Unlikely - according to Republicans they are all radical lesbians.
T
And while sane Americans were rallying for sane gun policy changes, the right was busy photoshopping the kids and presenting the altered photos as the real thing.
Off topic [ph]
It's really a shame that there cannot be a civil debate on this issue. And yes, I know that it's the "other guy's fault", because the collective "you" would never look in the mirror to view your own bias.
I believe in all Amendments. I believe that they were all promulgated in a very thoughtful way, seeking to address the needs of the people, and the health of the Republic. I believe in the First Amendment. I believe in the Second Amendment.
I believe the Constitution and its Amendments were written so that they could breathe. I believe that this gives us the ability to sit down periodically to examine them in their original form, and to determine whether or not they themselves are in need of amendment.
If both sides are so confident that they, empowered by those that support them, are right, then they should have no problem debating each other, for the purpose of determining exactly what it is that needs to be addressed, changed, or compromised upon.
As usual, we're getting nowhere. The insults aren't even fresh or new.
I'm out.
I'm with Jon here. I believe in everything he believes in, regarding our Constitution.
Where is the discussion? Why do we work so hard on trying to discredit the other side, rather than finding a middle ground here?
"Gun control" will not really solve this issue. There are many many tens of millions of guns out there, privately owned, and likely many millions of these 'assault' rifles. Since 'confiscation' is not practical, what we need is a culture that greatly lessens peoples desire to use these guns. All gun advertising should be ended, the same way cigarette advertising was ended. The culture needs to stop glorifying guns. The glorification and fetishizing of guns should be barred from social media. The Cruz kid that killed the people at Parkland fetishized his guns on social media.
But if you seek compromise, I will compromise on guns. Rather than ban all private ownership of guns, I will compromise and say that we ban AR-15 style assault rifles (those who own one now can keep them, but not sell them) , ban magazines over 10 rounds, and institute background checks for ALL sales of guns. I think those are fair steps to compromise. Do you agree Perrie?
Happens to you a lot , does it?
Okay, Jonathan. But the reality is that the NRA and the the Reps it owns in Congress take an absolutist position on the 2d A. No compromise is permitted on automatic weapons. There really is no comparable position on the gun control side of this issue. There is no "take away all the guns" being proposed (except in the fevered minds of gun freaks).
[I notice the site is acting up again]
Semi-automatic weapons. And these include shotguns and .22s.
What does automatic weapons have to do with this discussion? Do you know the rules for owning an automatic weapon the US? When was the last time an automatic weapon was used to commit a crime in the US?
What is the compromise on semi-automatic weapons? Limiting magazine quantity?
Personally, I like the idea that no one under the age of 21 can buy or possess a gun. I would make an exception for under 21 hunters as long as they are being accompanied by parent or guardian.
I would also like to raise the minimum age of military enlistment to the age of 21 in order to keep automatic guns out of the hands of kids whose brains are still in the development stage.
No compromise is permitted on automatic weapons.
There really is no comparable position on the gun control side of this issue.
And there are the starting points. Loggerheads, indeed.
Proposals need to be made by both sides, and debated and compromised on. I doesn't sound like much fun, and neither side seems to have the desire nor the inclination to move from its position.
It's time for greatness. If only they sit down at the same table...
I agree, if we really want to reduce gun homicides in the US lets do it. We can start by cracking down on gang violence. Which, according to the CDC, accounts for a majority of all gun homicides in the US.
This is usually about where the debate goes off the rails. Those that want to be partisan about it, will rationalize this or that about such comments but the fact remains curbing gang violence could have the biggest positive effect on reducing gun murders.
That is an undeniable fact since they are the biggest slice of the gun murder pie ...... by far.
Protests for banning assault weapons are certainly the "in" thing right now but statistically will have little effect at reducing total gun homicides by comparison.
Then maybe you could get the NRA to stop fighting efforts by cities to confiscate the weapons being used by gang members and even, gasp, making gun owners whose weapons are stolen (providing the vast majority of the weapons used by gangs) liable for what happens when those guns are used in those murders. Ahhh, but gun freaks actually being held responsible for not properly securing those weapons can never be considered, right?
The NRA is "FOR" Illegals" and "Illegal" ownership ?
REALLY ?
Last time I read, the NRA "IS ALL IN" for "Legal" ownership.
What "Flavor of the day Story" have you been reading ?
Gladly. And then I'll expect your apology for libeling me.
The NRA has never opposed confiscating the weapons of criminals since US law already prohibits them owning firearms
The NRA was one of the plaintiffs. Of course, I knew you'd deny what was right in front of your face and try to bluff your way out of admitting that you don't know shit from toothpaste (as anyone close to you would realize).
The endless flow of bullshit never stops with you people.
It should have read "semi-automatic" as mocowgirl pointed out. My mistake.
My mistake. Meant to write semi-automatic. But the accessories (bump stocks and pistol grips) that can modify the semis to fire at very nearly automatic rates are relevant to the discussion.
Pistol Grips don't change the rate of fire.....for ANYTHING !
I have a "Pistol Grip" shifter on my car, but I'm no faster than I was when I had a "Factory Shifter".
By the way....ALL Pistols.....have a Pistol Grip. Are they more dangerous because of it ?
When Heller was decided (5 to 4) in 2008, many people felt that the minority opinion by Justice Stevens was just as persuasive and grounded in the second amendment as Scalise's majority opinion was. The SC was a conservative court then , as now, and the conservative interpretation prevailed. Had the court been a "liberal" court Stevens opinion would have prevailed. I wonder if everyone who is so enthusiastic about "the second amendment" today would still be as enthusiastic if Stevens view had prevailed.
Simply, saying "I believe in the second amendment " is not really a position. Everyone "believes in" the second amendment.
Even St. Scalia's majority opinion in that case included the statement that the second amendment did not confer the right of anyone to have any weapon for any purpose.
Like all of the Bill of Rights is a negative charter against natural rights people have.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 1876
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
John F Kennedy Inaugural Speech Jan 20 1961
Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The Supreme Court has twice upheld our right to have weapons comparable to the foot soldier
US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons
And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller
”It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Thank you for being such a rich source of BS to destroy. You cite a piece of Scalia's opinion in Heller that had nothing to do with the actual case which indicates just how fond he was of listening to his own voice. But here's something else he wrote in that opinion that I don't think you'll like (although I expect a response which will try to pretend the plain words don't mean what they plainly do):
Oh, and he ends the paragraph with the statement above with this:
Locking this seed due to the inattention of the seeder
who has not commented since #1
SP
I've been looking without success for the gun freaks who wanted to see proof that there's a much greater risk of being killed or injured in homes that have guns, so I'll put it here. Granted, these are facts so I'm sure it will be rejected by them. Giving facts to them is like providing copies of Shakespeare's sonnet to residents of pig sty and expecting them to learn and recite them from memory but it's still worth trying:
These are just a few of the hundreds of studies of this problem.