National School Walkout

[carpedm9587]

Oh please, they have little life experience, and given the state of education in this country, little sense of history.

A claim with little/no substance, since I doubt you know the kids involved in putting this together.

How can they with adults like you repeating inane memes like "gun violence?" When people are stabbed do we call that knife violence, or killed with a bat, bat violence? Pure propaganda.

If we look at the statistics of weapons used for murder, and note that ratio of deaths that occur based on some type of firearm, then "gun violence" is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to them collectively. How is that a "meme?"

[carpedm9587]

It is settled law.

Law yes - settled no. I'm sure you don't consider Roe vs. Wade "settled law," and don't advocate for its overturn.

Nonsense, they would repeal the second amendment or ban firearms altogether if they could.

New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/o...dment-nra.html

I do not trust leftists in the least...

Some would. I certainl would advocate for an amendment that clarifies the meaning and places reasonable bounds, once we have research that shows what those bounds would best be.

[carpedm9587]

This Hogg kid is a vile little Cretan, if my teenage son ever used the kind of language publicly that he did I would have slapped his ears back.

But go Trump go....!

[EvoUK]

Your crowd had 50 years to come up with a solution and have singularly failed to do so. Now you only have until they can vote. Tick. Tock.

[rogue06]

You do understand the difference between "student led" and "student funded," right? As has been said several times, I have seen no real claim that there has been no adult involvement, and I don't see a problem if there is - except in the need for the right to figure out how best to defame these kids...

You do understand the difference between "student led" and "student inspired," right? That's what it becomes when the Hollyweird elites move in and start financing everything and help provide transportation and other logistical jobs ... You know. Run the thing.

[carpedm9587]

You do understand the difference between "student led" and "student inspired," right? That's what it becomes when the Hollyweird elites move in and start financing everything and help provide transportation and other logistical jobs ... You know. Run the thing.

Absolutely - and this entire thing appears to be student led AND student inspired. Everything I have seen (except the baseless accusations from the right, of course) indicates that these kids have worked hard to retain control - despite the fact that they need adults for many parts of what they are doing (transportation, lodging, funding, heck - just getting passes to be away from school).

Financing is not equally to running. I have donated significant amounts to various charities. I don't "run" any of them. Of COURSE people who endorse this cause are going to get behind it with dollars. What on earth did you expect? I donated significantly to our state cause/march. I have not lifted a finger to "run" a blessed thing.

[rogue06]

Absolutely - and this entire thing appears to be student led AND student inspired. Everything I have seen (except the baseless accusations from the right, of course) indicates that these kids have worked hard to retain control - despite the fact that they need adults for many parts of what they are doing (transportation, lodging, funding, heck - just getting passes to be away from school).

Financing is not equally to running. I have donated significant amounts to various charities. I don't "run" any of them. Of COURSE people who endorse this cause are going to get behind it with dollars. What on earth did you expect? I donated significantly to our state cause/march. I have not lifted a finger to "run" a blessed thing.

You must be using one of your own definitions here again for "led" because the signs are sure starting to point toward it being run by Hollyweird types.

[seer]

A claim with little/no substance, since I doubt you know the kids involved in putting this together.

What part I'm I wrong about? Having little life experience? Or little sense of history?

If we look at the statistics of weapons used for murder, and note that ratio of deaths that occur based on some type of firearm, then "gun violence" is a perfectly acceptable term to refer to them collectively. How is that a "meme?"

Pure propaganda, why don't we call it knife violence, knives came in third on your list? Firearms are inanimate objects, they don't do violence.

[seer]

Law yes - settled no. I'm sure you don't consider Roe vs. Wade "settled law," and don't advocate for its overturn.

Except there is no actual, explicit right to kill your own unborn in the Constitution. There is an explicit right to own firearms.

Some would. I certainl would advocate for an amendment that clarifies the meaning and places reasonable bounds, once we have research that shows what those bounds would best be.

Nonsense, complete repeal and confiscation is more wide spread then you seem to want to admit. And that will lead to one thing - Civil war...

[Mountain Man]

DZFmj4iX0AAZ_0e.jpg
DZGpIdQW4AAObb7.jpg
https://twitter.com/longhawl/status/...005761/photo/1

[seer]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27078[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27079[/ATTACH]

"We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country" by politicians who are "owned by the NRA," David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, said on "Good Morning America" this morning. "Today we are going to start a revolution."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-sc...ry?id=53981583

I hope Mz Hogg remembers which side has all the guns...

[carpedm9587]

You must be using one of your own definitions here again for "led" because the signs are sure starting to point toward it being run by Hollyweird types.

I would be interested in what sources you are turning to that suggest it is being run by anyone other than the kids, with adult support for the things they cannot do for themselves.

[carpedm9587]

Except there is no actual, explicit right to kill your own unborn in the Constitution. There is an explicit right to own firearms.

And yet the courts have ruled that a woman has a right to privacy, which IS in the constitution. That is the basis for Roe v. Wade, as far as I know. And a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was that it was written to provide for a "well regulated militia." There is also no "right" in the constitution that is considered "absolute" and "without exception." So the disagreement is about where those boundaries ought to be drawn. You appear to be fast to call things "settled law" when they agree with you, and dismiss them as "settled law" when you do not agree with you.

Nonsense, complete repeal and confiscation is more wide spread then you seem to want to admit. And that will lead to one thing - Civil war...

Frankly, I would not be opposed to far more strict laws concerning guns, and a significant reduction in their number. I look around at countries and cities that have taken hard stances on guns and see the results. Hong Kong is one of the largest cities in the world (37th, with NYC 28th and Chicago 114th), and they have extremely strong gun laws. Their murder rate is the lowest in the world (0.2 per 100,000 people). There is something to consider there. I would like to see it researched to determine if such an approach would have an effect here.

Simultaneously, I would like to see reasonable protections for guns used for hunting, sport, and as a tool on places like ranches and farms.

However, if the majority of us want more control in our country, then that is what will eventually happen. If a vocal minority disagree and take it on themselves to disobey the laws, assuming they are changed, then they will have to bear the consequences of that choice. If they choose to wage war on the rest of the country because we happen to disagree with them, I would say they weren't very American to begin with. That's not the way we roll in America. In America, we respect the rule of law, and the majority does get to have its say now and again. Right now, more and more people are echoing the "enough is enough sentiment." Fight the battle in the courts. Fight it in the legislature. But if people elect to fight it in the streets with their guns, then they have become the criminals they claim they are not, and it does not say a great deal about their respect for the rule of law.

[carpedm9587]

I hope Mz Hogg remembers which side has all the guns...

I am frankly disappointed in this Seer. It is neither a very Christian sentiment, nor a very American one.

And I have to wonder how it aligns with your apparently "objective" Christian morality. On what possible basis can you defend obliguely threatening to shoot people who disagree with you and decide some piece of equipment should be band for safety's sake? If someone disagrees with banning a certian kind of lightbulb - are they likewise justified in threatening physical harm?

Let me guess - light bulbs are not guaranteed by the constitution. So you have the right to threaten physical violence if someone disagrees with your interpretation of the constitution? This is what you are saying?

[hedrick]

I've always suspected that the 2nd amendment was to make sure there were people who could resist the government. (There's an interesting theory that it was intended to protect Southern militias that controlled slaves, but I've seen a fairly convincing argument against that.) If that's the goal, the issues are at least in part different today. We really need to be looking at things like government spying. I guess we could end up with a militia with AR-15s fighting government troops, as happened in the Revolution, but I have a feeling that's not what we should be worried about today. They tried to make sure they could win the last war if it happened again. It's a place to start, but typically not what's actually going to happen.

At one point export of encryption technology was controlled. It was classified as military technology. I think the Supreme Court should consider use of encryption free of government interference as being implied by the 2nd amendment.

Furthermore, if you read the 2nd amendment literally, the right to weapons would seem to be connected to participation in a militia, which presumably would imply some degree of discipline and oversight. I wonder if anyone has considered doing something like that.