https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 159892}

literally begging the government to take their rights away

No, they want to take others rights away. This doesn't really affect them yet.

they are still "their" rights whether they choose to exercise them or not.

it's like them not caring about free speech because they don't have anything to say (yet).

Oh, no. try to take their free speech and they will spaz the fuck out. They are exercising their free speech right now. None of them currently have the right to own guns legally yet, so this does not affect them yet. They just have the attention spans of squirrels and have not planned that far into the future yet.

it's a right they possess - whether they are using it presently or not.

it is their right as an American citizen. once they reach the age of 18 they may exercise that right.

it is their right as an American citizen. once they reach the age of 18 they may exercise that right.

It is a right that they have been indoctrinated into hating. They don't care about that one, so taking it from others does not rate on their give a shit meter.

they are being used.

and this is ok to you?

No, it is not OK with me.

"None of them currently have the right to own guns legally yet."

Depends on the gun, and the state.

I'm not sure you understand how rights work. Rights are for everyone. That's why they're called rights and not permissions.

Very well aware of how rights work. Also aware that none of them can in fact exercise their second amendment rights because other people like them have made it law that they can't legally do so until they are at least 18. None of them are losing anything right now, so they are not thinking about losing anything.

so they are not thinking about losing anything.

Yeah I think you're wrong here.

Really? How so? People that don't want other people to have guns don't think of it as a right. Therefore they don't think of this as giving up a right. They are not giving up anything in their minds. They think of it as actually gaining more freedom.

Lol, ok. You see it as taking the right to own guns. Most of the kids want tighter gun restrictions so that they arent under threat by any crazy w a modded automatic. Youd think conspiracy would be pro activism among the youth.

Enjoy

Good point, maybe the first thing we should do is take the guns away from the military that terrorizes the entire globe.

Maybe they should talk about the disproportionate amount of cops who are allowed to murder civilians without so much as a slap on the wrist with guns?! Where's the talk about that huh. Disarm cops!

Dude that was like one of the biggest topics of 2016-2017

Youd think conspiracy would be pro activism among the youth.

uh no. why would this sub blindly support "activism" amongst the least informed of us.

they don't understand the context of what is going on here.

How hard is it to understand "Today might be the day I never come home again."????

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Fuck off with that low-effort, emotionally-charged bullshit. Every single one of those kids' life was more in danger driving to school that day. Let's just not let people leave their homes anymore, surrender all freedom for absolute safety.

"Today might be the day I never come home again."????

Translated: Take my rights away, please....because muh feelings.

I just love how "feelings" has somehow become an acceptable insult for this. We aren't talking about entitled brats crying because their iPhones broke. We're talking literal life and death. But sure....feelings. Also, even if the most extreme fix of banning AR rifles was taken...you still don't loose any rights. There are still plenty of different guns you'd be able to own. It's like saying you can't eat pizza anymore because you discovered your allergic to mushrooms. Nope...still plenty of pizzas you can eat. Still plenty of guns you can own.

Also, even if the most extreme fix of banning AR rifles was taken...you still don't loose any rights.

Ok, pal. Tell me how you can ban AR's without banning all semi auto firearms? Here's another guy who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about that I don't want to have any say in gun laws.

You know if you're taking the position of school children over the position of the founding fathers that won a war against the biggest empire at the time, and then ended up building an empire even bigger than theirs - you might want to reconsider your position.

Yeah? Well, if we're going to play that game... You realize they were all Masons and, George Washington was the richest man in America....?

They may have fought and won their own country but, they sure as fuck didn't do it for us.

So. I'm with the brainwashed kids.

You want to give up the only serious fighting chance you have? That's smart.

"I am increasingly persuaded that the earth belongs exclusively to the living and that one generation has no more right to bind another to it's laws and judgments than one independent nation has the right to command another." -Thomas Jefferson

The thing about reconsidering is that it is always necessary and yet often redundant. But no, tell me more about our founding fathers ideas on the next generation and empire.

"I'm not taking away your clothes, just those ridiculously thick warm ones. It's ninety degrees out!"

"What if it gets cold?"

"Don't worry, it's not going to get cold."

Logical fallacy.

Well, spell it out. Which one, and how? Do you know?

Rule 53 on this well prepared list. Using a false analogy.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

Well, it could be, but you haven't established that. Go ahead.

Why? are you telling me you think clothing and guns are the same?

I see. If you don't understand analogy, it's going to be difficult to prove this is a false analogy. Try again?

So hey hey hey tell me your definition of analogy?

Neat turnaround. Do you deceive for a living, or a hobby?

WTF! you are claiming I don't know what an analogy is but you can't tell me what it is.

Another turnaround. No substance.

Listen, it's late, sleep on it, get your head in the game. A quick scan suggests we might have more in common than not. This gun hysteria is dividing the people who should be working together against the screwheads to save our species from a number of truly grave impending disasters.

How many clothes are you going to need to wear to protect yourself from a Buffalo MRAP? Youre gonna need a lot more layers than a modded automatic. Just how many layers are you willing to put on?

Lets face the facts, the American people lost their ability to truly compete with their government in 1916 on the Somme. I do not see enough people out there w anti tank/air systems, and honestly i don't think we need them. The American people are not frogs, if things heat up they will notice. Look at the reaction to Trump and tell me people have become passive to authoritarianism. Just kiddng of course, youre going to tell me its shills.

Hello.

I'm going to agree with you that light arms, not matter how advanced, are a poor response to heavier military equipment. All the ARs and AKs you want won't protect you from a Hellfire missle or an light tank division.

However, you can't argue that asymmetrical warfare against a native population has been non problematic for modern militaries. And you can't argue that those opposition forces would have been as effective as they were without modern light arms.

There's also the simple fact that these conflicts have been against a much smaller population than the US civil war you envision, and in a much smaller geographical area. Much smaller. And the US military will be smaller if there's a civil war. And many US military personnel would to be on different sides, and they would be able to acquire and command some larger equipment. And in the case of a breakdown in the US, the domestic enemy will not be their only threat ... we've made a lot of external enemies, who do have serious military gear. So internally, it becomes much less likely that every engagement will be as lopsided as you imagine. Also, supply lines. The path from American factory and depot to Iraq, or Afganistan, or Vietnam, these are very secure supply lines. That's not the case in an internal conflict, not even vaguely.

So that's a small analysis of your chosen perspective, citizens against an hostile government, and I hope we can agree that's it's not as cut and dried as you were thinking.

However, all that is just one issue.

What if the govt doesn't wage open war against the people? What if, for any number of possible reasons, there's a crash, and society breaks down, and the government just withdraws to protect "itself" and "it's people" - the very wealthy?

What would happen if the half the power was out, half the stores were unsupplied, and the police and military withdrew or were ineffective? Or let me put it to you another way. You and fifty friends are going to be dropped into Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan tomorrow. Choose, for your group, ten AK47's and five thousand rounds, or ten Winchester 30-30's and five dozen boxes of cartridges.

As far as the political climate goes, that's a much larger subject that I'm happy to discuss, but for now I've got to run.

i'm not a gun person. never owned one, never will. but the school massacre with assault rifles narrative is like the terrorist narrative, a black swan the size of the sun.

not only is the likelihood that anyone will ever be in a school massacre, or any other mass murder, infentessimal, it has been rapidly declining for my entire life, and i'm 46. there were more in the 80s and 90s. the 1990s were the hey day of mass murder.

you don't legislate for the unlikely, but the likely.

no one should be shot in school. no one should be shot by cops. no one should be shot as a matter of course.

people care about these episodes because they are affluent white kids. poor black kids are shot everyday going, coming, and while in school in south chicago and camden. not too many walks out. and no bernie sanders campaign rallies disguised as solidarity with dead highschool students.

fwiw, hand guns have been used in the past. if assault rifles are banned, handguns will be used again.

Guns still kill 96 American people a day on average. For what purpose? Protection from the government? Unless these people are buying anti tank and air systems (which they're not allowed too anyways) the American people would not stand a chance against the american military, and why should we? The military if full of the American people!

Whataboutism. So it is predominantly white people getting shot. Dont we want white people to not get shot? And while were now on the subject, do you want to help these poor black kids from being shot in the street? How do you propose to do this?

As to your point on handguns, i agree that banning rifles will surely motivate people towards handguns, but handguns on average have slower bullet velocity and less magazine capacity and accuracy. They are objectively less deadly in a school setting than a semi/automatic rifle.

Most of the kids want tighter gun restrictions so that they arent under threat by any crazy w a modded automatic.

And what's to stop a "crazy" from murdering people with a pair of easily concealed pistols? More legislation? Should we take away everyone's handguns too? Because making it illegal to kill people in the first place has proven to be an effective way to stop people from gun terrorism, right?

But what about my crazy anecdotal story god dammit. This happened that one time and it was crazy!

As a 2nd ammendment proponent, i hope you know that its near impossible to fure two pistols accurately at once and rifles have much more sustained killing potential b/c of magazine capacity.

Huh, what else, little slippery slope here, little whataboutism there... no hope arguing w that... Oh! Thats a little diamond in the rough! I would think that you guys would be proponents of teen activism because it shows a commitment to improving society in the next generation, even if you dont personally agree w the goals. Think about this, the people who organized this rally have made more political sway than this subreddit has in all the years its existed, and both are run by teenagers. Isnt that at least a little worthy of admiration?

I think a lot of kids don't really know or care what they're doing...it's an excuse to get our of class. Those that honestly "believe" are likely just mirroring their parents. I think the majority really couldn't care less...

yes! we had a walk out in school today. I have a friend who is also on the conspiracy side of things and we didn’t leave the class cause it’s terrible people are even doing that

This.

When I was in HS, a few actually concerned students published their own newspaper (pre-internet) when the school newspaper wouldn't let them run a (paid) advertisement opposing war generally, and campus military recruitment particularly.

The school did their best to collect the papers.

Then, when a big helicopter was scheduled to land on the football field to stiffen all the pubescent pricks into military attention, a relative few people who cared got a bunch of people who just wanted something to do to walk out and stop that from happening. And they did.

But back in those days, the media wasn't doing such a good job at making an apple look bigger than an apartment building and keeping your attention away from the orchard.

This X a million.

I did just as stupid crap to get out of class when In was in high school.

I think it's also possible that some kids genuinely fear and do not want to be shot.

Which is a pathetic reflection on the mass media. Statistically, they are far more likely to die in their cars than from a shooting.

Not in their classrooms

If they don't want to fear getting shot then what they need to do is turn off the TV and their smartphones that are telling them it's going to happen any second.

So responding by leaving campus in an unauthorized manner is illogical because it exposes them to more danger.

Oh come on, you know they're leaving campus as a political statement and not as a security measure.

It's like people going on a hunger strike for weeks to protest a war or something. They clearly don't think starving themselves will stop them from being possibly drafted in the future because they'd be too unhealthy to fight. They're doing it because it draws attention to their cause and makes a strong political statement how the war isn't worth it.

Some of the student might be walking out for a free day, but it's disingenuous as fuck to suggest a nearly all of them or even most are doing it for that reason.

Yep when trump won our nearby HS did a walkout. Not one of them cared about trump or politics they just wanted an excuse to get out of school.

Why do you think the party in 1984 used children?

This. Orwell also explained this idea in Animal Farm, where the pups were taken at a young age to be raised to be guard dogs for the dictators.

Excellent. I had forgotten that..

Every country on this earth has been disarmed except for USA and Switzerland. Once we are disarmed there is no chance to fight against the one world government

Except for Switzerland which is the heart of the NWO theories.

Care to explain more? I haven’t ever heard of Switzerland being related to any of the NWO stuff.

Bank of international settlements is headquartered there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindlifresserbrunnen

https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/opening-ceremony-worlds-largest-tunnel-bizarre-occult-ritual/

Just a couple of things off the top of my head.

Sounds like as good topic for the next roundtable

Yup that’s exactly what I said in my comment not sure why I’m being downvoted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindlifresserbrunnen

https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/opening-ceremony-worlds-largest-tunnel-bizarre-occult-ritual/

Just a couple of things off the top of my head.

which of your guns can shoot down drones?

Very poor argument. In the event our government becomes tyrannical many in the military and intelligence agencies will not go along with it. Believe it or not there are patriots that work in the government.

wait if the army isnt joining the tyrannical government who are they going to use to control the masses? Every tyrannical government needs muscle

And these "Patriots" will control the drones, tanks and warships?

If the government becomes tryannical your going to rely on government employees to fight itself?

I don't think you've fought out your own argument.

Man if only we had drones in Afghanistan, we'd be out of there in a week... Oh wait.

I don't think you know the meaning of disarmed.

And seriously your fantasy of you and few yolkels taking on the government is insane.

You couldn't be anymore of a stereotype.

Of what?

A conspiracy theorist. How many times have you references 1984 in the last week?

Many. It's one of our sacred texts..

Not a big fan of it myself. Bit of a rip off of earlier stuff. Besides, my main issue is I don't agree young people are any more likely to be swept up by political movements than old people. In fact elderly people vote much more uniformly generally.

The majority of people do as they are told.

They are not saying come and take MY gun away. They are saying come and take HIS. In other words they are calling for the government to deprive YOU of your rights, not they of theirs. Pernicious, isn't it?

What about the rights of students to be safe in a school environment?

Exactly. I believe there is a higher right than the right to own a gun. The right to not be shot by one by crazy lunatics.

You already have that. Laws ban murder.

Do you really think the Holocaust plays out the same way if 6 million Jews had guns? Sorry, but until the dead kids deathcount reaches the million mark, which is what it will cost us when it inevitably goes wrong (after all, gun restrictions never get reversed, and you're assuming that your government will never ever again for the rest of time be evil), then yeah, it's worth it. The victims of mass shootings is merely a statistical anomaly. More kids die from school bus accidents each year than from mass shooters. Where are the walkouts demanding stricter bus driver hiring guidelines, stricter licensure laws, and more driving tests?

You actually answered your own question. Bus ACCIDENT. Not a willful act. Not pre-meditated. Not done in evil. Not the intent. Accident.

And while we're on the line of bus accidents, I'd like to point out that more is legally required of a person to be able to drive a school bus than is required of them to be able to purchase a gun.

Why does the willful act matter? The dead kid count should be what matters.

For the same reason it can make the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge.

Me owning an AR-15 deprives nobody of any rights. It isn't complicated at all. These kids are basically fascists that want to dictate what other people are allowed to own. They'll bitch about police brutality all day, but they seem oddly okay with the police being the only ones with guns.

They're exercising their right to free speech first of all. You should be in favour of that. Just because you disagree with their opinions or ideas doesn't change that.

The last how many mass shootings were done with that gun. Do you need it for hunting? Personal protection? What do you need the large clip for? Zombies?

What about the rights of students to be safe in a school environment?

If a person wants to murder a bunch of kids, no amount of legislation regarding guns will stop them. It's already illegal to murder people, and people still do it, so how do you think you're going to stop them by making it illegal for them to commit murder in this way? What's to stop someone from building a bomb using common chemicals? What's to stop someone from going in to a school with some knives? Hell, they could just go down to the liquor store, pick up a few bottles of booze, and firebomb a school with molotov cocktails. If you wanna get more complicated than that, it's not difficult to build a full-on flamethrower from equipment available at any hardware store.

Not to mention, what's to stop them from using a smuggled gun from the black market? There are more guns in the USA than there are human beings, no matter what legislation there might be, if someone wants a gun, they can get a gun. If someone wants to kill innocent children, they're gonna do it. Making it a crime to murder children won't stop them from doing it, it's already fucking illegal anyway.

All those things are a lot more difficult than grabbing your gun (which you bought with barely any hoops to jump through) and going to shoot some kids hiding from you. Knife attacks require close quarters combat. Bomb making requires chemicals and materials that bring up flags when you buy them, and skill/know-how to manufacture.

What about the rights of students to be safe in a school environment?

How does taking away my firearm affect that? You can't just be a fascist and demand people give up rights because some person grew up troubled and murdered people (murder is already illegal, btw).

It comes down to the people, and truly broken homes and mental health issues are the things we should be focusing on. People are stressed, depressed, and fail to see the value in human life. That's the real issue here. Stop trying to take away my firearm. It's not my fault.

How about police and fbi do their job and investigate when z concerned citizen makes a call about a potentially dangerous individual, much less 40+ calls on the same one

I do agree with that. The police and fbi definitely should have followed up. But what realistically could they have done? There was no crime committed yet. They couldn't lock him up nor could they force him to get psychiatric help. He was an adult at the time. Also, expecting the system to work 100% of the time is not realistic. People make mistakes and there are no precise rules that always work to identify people who commit these kind of crimes.

Yeah, they want to deny firearm ownership to people with "mental illness". Even though that term is vague and could apply to literally half the country. Have you seen the posts about the bullshit "mental illness" reasons they used to lock up women during the Victorian era? I've even seen articles of people advocating that belief in "conspiracy theories" should be recognized as a "mental illness". In the future, you might go in to buy a gun and get asked "Who killed JFK" and if you say anything other than "Lee Harvey Oswald all by himself", you'd not be allowed to buy that gun.

Well, we as a nation certainly do have a prodigious history of criminalizing our own citizens for pretty much the pettiest of reasons. I am certain we can dream up a whole raft of reasons why you, me, and everyone else shouldn't have a gun. Most of them will revolve around all of us being a criminal. We'll just expand the definition of "crime" until we all fall in the circle. Problem legislatively solved.

The school I teach at organized a memorial today for the 17 victims from Parkland and another from Birmingham. There was no protest and students didn't walk out; instead, they were dismissed by PA announcement to participate in the memorial of they chose to. The students walked for 18 minutes and released 18 balloons in memory of the victims. There was no talk about guns or political stance.

This, however, didn't stop our local news from showing up, shooting video, and fabricating a story that our students walked out today to stand against gun violence. I'm frustrated.

Fucking spin. Can you challenge your news station on the true events and make them redact their false statements? ?

Good question, one that never had crossed my mind.

Sometimes if you barrage them with social media calling them out on their bullshit in the public eye they will fix their mistake or correct a headline

Correcting a headline accomplishes nothing. The headline is breaking news, the correction comes buried in the website, nobody catches the correction.

BIG FAKE NEWS

^{tiny retraction}

Do it anyway, others can link to it and spread the correction.

Doesn't really matter though does it? Headlines are front page above the fold, corrections are put on the back page. In this case, there's not going to be a ten minute segment on the correction like there was the initial misconstrued event so no one is going to see it.

My kids attend some of the largest schools in the country and their classes are ~1200-1600 students each. This is also a fairly liberal area.

My high schooler said not more than 30 kids walked out and half of them were openly just cutting class and didn't care.

The same kid also identifies as gay and has been ostracized from the community due to her foolish notions of personal responsibility. She jokes about showing up to the LGBT club to make fun of them for being snowflakes. going to be interesting in another 10 years when she's at the helm. I'm in my 40s and I realize I ain't seen nothing yet.

Sounds like you've done a good job imposing your world view on your kid, same as the liberal parents of the kids who walked out probably did. Not judging your parenting, just pointing out that it's not like your kid developed that attitude in a vaccum.

That's a tough onion to peel. We have a fairly balanced house with a wide variety of supported views. My kid had no problem coming out to us but I own a number of firearms. However, I welcome you to judge my parenting when my kid puts personal responsibility first.

Things are more complex than the political talking points might lead you believe.

I love and respect my dad, talk to him almost every day...but we are 100% different politically. You did things right with your kids if you can still talk despite differing social/political views...I couldn't imagine a life w/o being able to call my dad...even though I know one day he will be gone.

He instilled in me independence and a rebellious spirit. I credit him (and my mom) with instilling me with critical thinking and a distrust towards established authority.

even though I know one day he will be gone. Muh feels, man

Please have your high schooler read the book Prometheus Rising.

Prometheus Rising

I think that was supposed to be an insult, but it looks interesting and I'll pass it along to her after I'm done. Thanks.

It isn't, at all. Everyone should give it a read, especially when you're 18 and starting your life off.

The point hes making is children are a blank canvas and are molded by their social interactions. Meaning that your child is who they are because of the experiences they have had and not because of what kind of animal they are at their core.

Every child is a product of their genes and their environment. Always. I dont think OP was simply stating that. OP appeared to be saying Aleister went beyond either norm or what was ideal with how aleister taught/influenced his/her child.

Every child is a product of their genes and their environment

And every child lives in a environmental bubble. In essence the worldview.

AT 40 did you ever hear of ONE school shooting in the news when you were in High school? ONE? nope. me neither. These kids hear about one every single week.

Just because you didn’t hear about them doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. News wasn’t as readily available as it is today. Even 10-15 years ago it didn’t spread like wildfire like it does today.

if guns are the problem, how come we dont have tons of mass shootings in chicago every week?

I compiled this from Wikipedia today, out of curiosity:

Decade Deaths Events US Population Deaths per 100,000 1700’s 10 1 3,929,214 0.25 1840’s 1 1 17,069,453 0.01 1850’s 3 3 23,191,876 0.01 1860’s 8 6 31,443,321 0.03 1870’s 3 7 38,558,371 0.01 1880’s 2 11 50,189,209 0.00 1890’s 14 9 62,979,766 0.02 1900’s 13 15 76,212,168 0.02 1910’s 12 19 92,228,496 0.01 1920’s 5 10 106,021,537 0.00 1930’s 10 9 123,202,624 0.01 1940’s 11 8 132,164,569 0.01 1950’s 14 17 151,325,798 0.01 1960’s 44 18 179,323,175 0.02 1970’s 37 30 203,211,926 0.02 1980’s 49 39 226,545,805 0.02 1990’s 87 62 248,709,873 0.03 2000’s 107 63 281,421,906 0.04 2010’s 159 150 308,745,538 0.05

It will always be ok to tease people that choose to ostricize others.

If you teach critical thinking, there's only one side that isn't going batshit crazy right now.

I used to be a liberal. I haven't changed but all my friends have started supporting the fucking CIA. Really? Batshit crazy.

Fucking same. The sad part is that when I was sixteen I probably woulda walked out... as an adult I listen to these people and I feel like I’m talking to a sponge soaked in Rachel Maddow and Steven Colbert.

If your party is getting taken over by the CIA, you are probably on the wrong side. :(

What are your thoughts on Trumps current SoS pick? The alphabet agencies are supported overwhelmingly by both parties. I hope Trump supporters actually hold his feet to the fire over this. R's and D's are both just partisan hypocrites, neither will hold any kind of accountability. Just a never ending stream of whataboutism as the CIA further entrenches their agenda.

Personally I don't like it.

She jokes about showing up to the LGBT club to make fun of them for being snowflakes.

why are you bragging about this?

| why are you bragging about this?

I'm stating a fact. Why are all of your limited comments to conspiracy generally shitting on someone?

I'd shit on you too for saying that. I bet your kids a dumbass.

Removed. Rule 4.

Cool story

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

My kids attend some of the largest schools in the country

Yeah?

and their classes are ~1200-1600 students each.

Do they attend a fucking stadium or something for class?

They actually have overflow trailers across the back of the school. Billion dollar school budget mostly going to new schools but they can't build them fast enough.

As a journalism major, It is scary to think that the press can cover a story however they like. For me it's only unethical if sources aren't presented. I'm sure there were likely interview subjects discussing "walking for gun violence"? How did they present the information?

You’re assuming that every journalist plays by the same ethical rule book as you and unfortunately this isn’t the case. It’s likely they presented the case however they wanted to and shot footage on “both sides” and edited them out to either agree with each other (ie both sides finding a common ground that guns=bad) or they edited it to show more conflict than already existed (sex sells and when there’s no sex, sell conflict!). Ethics stops at the line where you need to put food on your table, and some guy in a film editing room is editing your footage without you, and your boss wants to drive something home.

Have you taken an ethics class yet? If so, did you discuss the separation between a journalist and management? This is a pretty common topic in most ethics classes because a manager doesn’t necessarily hold the same ethical standards as you and they don’t answer to your ethics. They answer to the money people who fund the projects/company. Those people have an agenda and couldn’t care less about your ethics or what you actually believe in.

If you are a journalism major ... have you ever heard of Edward Bernays? He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, applied his uncle's theories to the field of propaganda. He developed a template for manipulating a free press in a democratic society, and called it "public relations" because "propaganda" sounds bad.

Very interesting man, and his techniques remain in common use almost a century later. I feel that everyone should at least understand how he engineered the Guatemalan coup of 1954, as every American war since has been sold on similar grounds to the American people.

The BBC documentary, The Century of Self, is a great place to start. Free.

[I've used this image when talking about how media can "angle" a story:]

(https://imgur.com/gallery/wRdbna2)

The school organized.

There in lies the real problem.

Don’t be frustrated.

Use it.

Play the video of your news station fabricating their story.

That’s going to be the most valuable lesson you could teach.

This is a fantastic idea! It will plant the seed in many kids to not necessarily trust the media.

Those kids will remember you and that as one of the most important things they ever learned in school the rest of their lives.

Literally mind blowing

PLEASE do this.

If only one student turns the corner and begins questioning things it will be worth it.

Please do it and report back!

Agreed. If I had a teacher that did something like that in school, things might of been a lot different.

Literally the same exact situation in my city

Ya mine too. My brothers and his friends did not walk out and said they were interviewed by a news crew on why they did not walk with the rest of the school. They gave their opinions of course. Although when he told me that I felt like I had to get ready for some kind of repercussion because of this event because of the kind of area I live in.

It's to created manufactured consensus.

The fear of being shamed on social media is the driving force behind this.

Kids have gotten attacked and shamed for not joining in.

The difference between civil war and genocide is disarmament.

Nobody is marching for disarmament. I don't think you're spying attention.

The just want to disarm me of my AR-15 is all...

You have to show the students how their actions have been manipulated. It's a valuable lesson.

Oh, I did. I teach a broadcast journalism class. When I showed the students how their event was portrayed by our local media, they were not happy. It gave me another opportunity to stress how important it is for us to do our research and present accurate information.

I assume that's how most schools were, it's public school they can't make it way too political. Then the news flips and and people like OP make post about how angry they are at teenagers.

Exactly this.

My school during the Walkout talked about taking away guns and it was discusting

I will agree that the media are falling over themselves to publicize this story. "Hundreds march on DC!" Wow, hundreds? That's more than dozens!

I support the protests, but also recognize that much larger protests for Much better causes often go ignored.

Can you share a link to the news story?

http://www.wkrg.com/news/mobile-county/students-in-mobile-county-walkout-against-gun-violence/1044766386?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WKRG

This morning they released a new version of the story that separates the two schools and acknowledged that ours was in memory of the victims.

Sounds like an honest mistake then no?

I doubt it since they interviewed students about the purpose of the event and yet still reported it incorrectly. They changed it this morning due to all of the backlash they were receiving on social media.

Along time ago maybe in 2006 in California there were walkouts because some stupid Mexican shit was going on and the news came AFTER school had ended and filmed kids walking home and made it LOOK like they were doing walkouts during school. don’t believe their bullshit.

Loaded title. You could use the exact same headline every time there's a big pro life march. Some people are sick of a bunch of people being mowed down every couple months. Apparently some people don't really give a shit about that. But a lot of people do.

Your name is apt for your behavior.

Death note fan?

Good thing human rights aren't up for democratic debate

It's not a human right.

If we have a right to life, we have a right to defend that life.

Your gun rights aren't human rights. That's why gun rights are different all over the world.

Gun rights are like slave rights 150 years ago. Some countries outlawed slavery, most didn't. There is right and wrong, and only a few countries get it right.

If we have a right to life, THEN WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND IT.

Well other countries don't have their citizens murdering 20 people every couple months. And they got it wrong?

Germany did exactly that, after disarming the people in question. So yeah, I'd say they got it wrong. As for the others, it's just a matter of time.

Pax Americana has put a stop to most of the bloodbath that is common to human political history, but that is ending.

If we have a right to life, THEN WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND IT.

I have a right to life too. Where does my right to life and a crazy schizophrenic guy' guns rights meet?

That's the purpose of Common Law, to determine the intersections of Rights.

Generally speaking, if you infringe on someone else's rights without permission, you lose your own.

By the time that crazy guy loses his gun rights, I'm already dead.

The crazy guy loses his right to life when he comes at you. You are well within your rights to shoot him.

If you choose to disarm yourself, that's your problem. The police aren't everywhere.

By the way, crazy people generally do not kill others. I think you are more likely to be killed by a sane person.

So I just need to have a gun on me at all times and be constantly looking around ready for a crazy guy to come at me. We should all be living this way?

You can choose to live however you want. In America, you actually can choose, most countries force you to be disarmed.

Sure they do, other countries have tons of murders and from guns where guns are banned.

Even if guns were banned in the US, I can literally make one in the garage

Your religious rights aren't human rights. That's why religious rights are different all over the world. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Doesn't sound stupid at all. What you just said is true.

I believe that human rights are universal. It's disturbing that people like you think they come from a government document.

Human rights aren't universal. They are different all over the world.

Its been constructed to be socially accepted because the public was sold on ut from the media. At my younger sister's school it seemed like the teachers and school faculty just let it happen and even facilitated it. It was not a rebllious protest in any way, it was actually made the only socially acceptable option!

No one is asking for the second amendment to be taken away. US gun violence is out of control. There are common-sense restrictions that everyone should agree on, yet because of rhetoric like yours, we can't come to any consensus. It's tragic.

False. Demands for gun control have been around for decades, and often have success.

And gee...they keep going.

Gun grabbers like you will ABSOLUTELY not stop until only corrupt governments and politicians have guns.

False. Demands for gun control have been around for decades, and often have success. And gee...they keep going.

THat's because there are obvious loopholes that allow people who clearly should not have guns to obtain them.

Gun grabbers like you will ABSOLUTELY not stop until only corrupt governments and politicians have guns.

These kind of wild, false accusations are exactly why we can't even talk straight about the issue.

Gun grabbers like you will ABSOLUTELY not stop until only corrupt governments and politicians have guns.

You are so accusatory that no discussion is able to take place at all.

Gun grabbers like you will ABSOLUTELY not stop until only corrupt governments and politicians have guns.

Here's a list of suggested things to help with gun violence. Please point out the one that involves me coming to take your guns.

Increasing purchasing age to 21. Full background checks - including checks for mental health. Getting rid of loopholes like some states have where "if after 3 days a background check doesn't come back, the sale can be completed." Getting rid of the gun show and private purchase loopholes. Like for private purchases, both parties have to meet at a police station to complete a gun purchase transaction, logging the sale with the police department Mandatory safety courses Banning high capacity magazines. (Over 30+ per clip) Allowing the new fingerprint lock technology for guns, where only the owner can use the gun (pro-gun nuts objected to this, btw)

Please. Pick one. Explain to me exactly how it will result in me or anyone else coming to take your gun.

Increasing purchasing age to 21.- why should a legal us citizen not be allowed to purchase a firearm to defend themselves before turning 21? They are considered adults at 18...can vote, go to war...?

Full background checks - including checks for mental health- to the best of my knowledge this is already in the process...if the individual is flagged and entered in the system it's a no go...the process and system has failed numerous times but it's applicable

Getting rid of loopholes like some states have where "if after 3 days a background check doesn't come back, the sale can be completed." (This particular loophole has allowed more than 1 mass shooting to happen)- that's a state vs federal issue...couple that with marijuana prohibition on a state vs fed level...people can gift a firearm to another and there is 0 checks...how many times has this contributed to an incident? How many criminals go through a background check? Checks are good and dandy but doesn't fix issues present...

Getting rid of the gun show and private purchase loopholes. Like for private purchases, both parties have to meet at a police station to complete a gun purchase transaction, logging the sale with the police department- hate to go all guns are just tools, and people kill people...but...how would this fix anything?

Mandatory safety courses- most states already have this...FL, CA, NY, IL just to name a few...Albeit generally for concealed carry

Banning high capacity magazines. (Over 30+ per clip)- why? People who want to increase capacity of ammo will always find a way to do so...restricting it will only diminish a free persons ability to defend themselves...

Allowing the new fingerprint lock technology for guns, where only the owner can use the gun (pro-gun nuts objected to this, btw)- what if a gun needs to be used by a non owner in the event the owner is under duress, incapacitated, or unavalible...

I don't see why the government doesn't address the root problems, why do people commit this acts, what drives them to it? Why do the fact most of these shooters have a history or SSRI use? How is it that when these people have been reported and "looked into" by the authorities slip through the cracks? Why does the government continue to think that prohibition will correct these problems (ref. Alcohol, drugs, expression of ideas{think crack down or "hippy" mentality by FBI and CIA in the 60s/ 70s}, and firearms)...

(Sorry for the txt blend...can't figure out how to make txt bold on the iPad)

K

What about the previous gun control measures that have passed? Those aren't even enforced and try you ask for more.

51% of Democrats support banning all guns. Stop lying.

Source?

Source is life experience.

No, life experience is anecdotal evidence

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/poll-82-dems-favor-banning-semiautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

I was a little off on the numbers, but the point remains. Over 70% support for banning ALL semiautomatic (this includes basically all handguns). 39/41 over total repeal, but I don't have the data and I'm not sure if that only includes the two extremes of support (it goes 1-7, with 4 being not sure, 5/3 somewhat, 6/2 agree/disagree, and 7/1 strongly). It seems to only include the 6 and 7 values, which is not accurate. It's a yes-no vote, so it should include all past the 4 IMO.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/guns-parkland-polling-quiz/ fivethirtyeight says only 15% of dems support banning all guns

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/poll-82-dems-favor-banning-semiautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

This poll shows differently. Read my clarifications on the other reply.

fivethirtyeight is many levels more reliable than a website called "hotair" that references a suspect study.

Some people ARE demanding that guns be taken away. You may not be, and the majority may not be, but there are people out there who really do want that. There's even legal precedent in places like Australia. It's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.

ps gun violence today is actually LOWER today than it was in the 90s, you only think it's worse now because the media wants you to.

Some people ARE demanding that guns be taken away.

Sure. Every issue has its extremists.

gun violence today is actually LOWER today than it was in the 90s

Yes, and its possible that Clinton-era legislation on gun control was a major contributing factor.

It's not really "out of control"

It is still out of control when compared with other countries. Mass shootings are by and large an American phenomenon.

For example, the USA is involved in multiple wars, that's creating a lot of gun violence that didn't exist before.

Overseas war casualties do not affect gun violence statistics at all. Totally different metric.

Or how about the amount of unarmed people killed unjustly by police? Maybe we could do something about that easily preventable gun violence?

Completely agree on this.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

Banning assault weapons like AR-15s is not the same as banning all guns or repealing the second amendment.

Did you read the bill? All current semi automatic pistols are in there, and rifle with detatchable magazine...ect. that's a VERY large portion of currently manufactured fire arms.

Any time someone says "common sense" it means the opposite. It just means you want your way and the other side isn't compromising enough.

Also, gun violence is not out of control. You're being fed misleading numbers.

I like how they cut the end of their graph so the US is at the top. The chart says about 5% of homicides in the US are gun related. btw

They didn't March to repeal the 2nd amendment. No one is fuckin trying to do that anyway. We're trying to restrict access to powerful weapons that facilitate death. We're trying to keep the weapons out of the Hands of dangerous people before they murder a theater. We're trying to improve critical mental care so people can seek help when they need it.

"Coming for your guns" "going to ban firearms" are mindless statements regurgitated to keep you afraid and loyal to the GOP. Its a political tactic same as trashing trump at every opportunity for the left.

False.

Gun control has been around for decades. The gun grabbers never have enough. They always demand more. They have every time.

It won’t stop until only the corrupt government, run by corrupt politicians, have the guns.

In what world is this true. If you are talking about the USA please tell me about this scary trend ... You are just making absolutely general and false statements to back up what you think

Are you joking?

It's historically true. . .

You have to know that once a concession is made and more control over guns is given to the government, the first thought of the winning side is "ok what next".

That's how this has always gone. For further evidence, see most of the rest of the world.

Just like how when the courts banned yelling fire in a crowded theater free speech was then snowballed into not existing?

Oh wait that didn't happen and you're making a slippery slope fallacy with no evidence to back it up.

It's perfectly legal to yell Fire! in a crowded theater. I don't know what you are trying to say, but you've mostly just embarrassed yourself publicly here.

Are you an idiot or just terribly uninformed about the legality of our free speech rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Yes, that case was overturned more than 40 years ago.

Here is an update. I hope The Atlantic is a tolerable source for you.

Oh damn that's hilarious

Did you read your own article?

There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

This LITERALLY states my point. We have already restrictions on your free speech rights. And yet we haven't abolished free speech. The slippery slope argument is false.

My point is that it is perfectly legal to yell Fire! in a theater. Which it is.

Are there regulations on speech? Sure, but extremely minimal and only when there is a clear, specific, and immediate risk. Firearms are already far more highly regulated than speech.

the reality is that transitions to totalitarianism happen extremely fast, often days. You never know until it happens

Okay if you can back this absolute bullshit up, I will donate $10 in BTC to you personally for the world to see

Removed. Rule 10.

What about the previous gun control measures that have passed? Have they not worked, and if not I'd something going to be done to remove/reform those laws? The answers are both "No".

You ban automatic weapons; nothing changes. You restrict access; nothing changes. Notes you come for AR-15s; nothing changes as they're accounted for less than 200 deaths per year (actually that's all rifles). What then? Semi-auto rifles, than handguns, then on and on. Because the truth is, gun violence had been on a steady downward trend since the mid-90s.

Gun violence dropped more in America than it did in Australia when Australia banned guns. And there are more guns in Australia now than when the ban was passed, so it wasn't much of a ban.

And there are more guns in Australia now than when the ban was passed, so it wasn't much of a ban.

You got a source for this? Thanks.

Gun Deaths Rates in US and Australia graph. Interesting.

You ban automatic weapons; nothing changes. You restrict access; nothing changes. Now you come for AR-15s; nothing changes as they account for less than 300 deaths per year (actually that's all rifles).

...

Because the truth is, gun violence has been on a steady downward trend since the mid-90s.

You just make a sortation and then say nothing changes after the you're not backing up with any sort of fact or reality the point of the matter is people are using guns to commit large acts of violence carefully considering regulations on those guns is a smart thing to do Case Closed quit being so close-minded about it

Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Government-sponsored large-scale killings for racial or politicalreasons would be considered democide under Rummel's definition

"Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle."

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 159969}

This argument is textbook slippery slope fallacy.

Finally somebody who understands logic and debate! Hats off to you fine sir!

You're right.

Now, explain to me why we shouldn't ban some specific instances of speech, such as people speaking out against Islam, or against Trump.

We'll keep all other free speech, just ban those little specific parts.

Try saying "bomb" on a plane and tell me your free speech doesn't have limits.

I didn't say we don't already ban specific instances of speech, I said why don't we ban other dangerous ones like speaking out against Islam or speaking out against Trump?

We used to have a ban on assault weapons. No one repealed the 2nd amendment. Tyranny didn't consume America. The communists didn't take your guns away.

Both sides of the gun debate point to that and say either, "and it didn't work," or "and it helped." Both sides have sources. Hard to get to the objective truth nowadays.

Objectively, the communists didn't take over and no one repealed the 2nd amendment. Tyranny did not swallow the US.

Why are you prattling on about communists? You're the only one making the hyperbolic stance that "the communists might take over."

In this conversation yes, but it is a popular fear among people who argue that gun legislation will lead to a 2a repeal. Its so popular, in fact, that I have to assume you know it's a fear in the 2a camp and you're just being pedantic.

Yeah, I'm in that camp and that's not a "popular fear." We're concerned about the government becoming tyrranical and turning on its citizens, which happened over and over and over again in the 20th century.

No one is concerned that if the citizens lose their rifles, like the Chinese will come marching in. That's idiocy.

Mao rounded up and killed 70 million of his citizens. Stalin around 20 million, and if you don't think it can happen here:

Contingency plans by the US Government for rounding up people perceived by the government to be subversive or a threat to civil order have existed for many decades.[7] For example, from 1967 to 1971, the FBI kept a list of over 100,000 people to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

You can safely bet that that list is much bigger today (in fact, this is just the number from one list from one gov't agency 48 years ago). Ironically, ADEX was comprised primarily of lefties, who are now pleading for Big Brother to take their weapons.

I'm a leftists, and, back then, the ideology wasn't composed of pussies.

Here's a poster The Weather Underground made. Interesting group if you're unfamiliar: they bombed the pentagon, broke Tim Leary out of prison, organized profoundly against the war and corrupt government in general, etc:

https://www-tc.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/images/film_piece.gif

Why don't you march against alcohol then since that is responsible for more deaths than firearms are?

And it is about banning guns, guns that look scary that are functionally no different than many other guns.

You're whining about ar15s because they look scary, while at the same time you're exposing your ignorance.

One kills themself with alcohol, not others.

You've obviously never seen a drunk beat their child to death or any drunk driver ever. What a fucking stupid comment.

Sorry, I should have clarified. No matter what you do with a gun, a bullet gets shot. That thing will cause destruction whether intended or not. But alcohol depends entirely on the person. You don't see kids getting hurt when their teacher accidentally an "alcohol" in the room.

Horseshit. 40% of our violent crime is committed under the influence of alcohol. And every DUI death.

That is the dumbest statement I have read all day...you are a fool.

Ever heard of drunk driving?

They didn't March to repeal the 2nd amendment. No one is fuckin trying to do that anyway.

This is a false statement, and I'm pretty sure you know that people are in fact trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

We're trying to restrict access to powerful weapons that facilitate death.

The main target of the supposed bans is not more powerful than many other guns that are currently common and not subject to a potential ban. AR-15s are not a high caliber rifle.

We're trying to keep the weapons out of the Hands of dangerous people before they murder a theater.

This is completely different from banning a weapon. The simple fact is that the existing laws should have banned this guy from owning a firearm had they been enforced. They were not. People should be focusing on Scott Israel.

We're trying to improve critical mental care so people can seek help when they need it.

Most of the solutions are simple (unconstitutional) gun bans.

"Coming for your guns" "going to ban firearms" are mindless statements regurgitated to keep you afraid and loyal to the GOP.

No they aren't. Many people are in favor of a total repeal or repealing certain incredibly common guns. Stating otherwise does not make you correct.

Came here for this comment. Seems all the CIA puppets are here tonight, downvoting you.

Real leftists know that Marx demanded an armed populace. Fake leftists downvote you.

No one want to take your guns away

Cheers at the idea of banning all semi-automatics and turning 100 million americans into criminals.

U.S. population is 324 mil, are you claiming that nearly 1/3 of the people, on in three, here own a semi-automatic weapon?

Absolutely.

There are 3 guns in the United States for every person.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

Taking away guns, or buying them back, is not a realistic solution. There are simply too many of them out there. Hundreds of millions.

This is a misunderstanding of statistics. There are a lot of guns in the US sure, but a huge portion of them are owned by a small number of people with a FUCK TON of guns. People want to restrict private sales anyway, hardly anyone has even suggested a buyback just a ban on future sales. If the people who have them now are truly law-abiding citizens then we have nothing to worry about.

The person asked if 1 in 3 people own a semi-automatic. The source I linked backs that up. My only point is that there are a lot of guns out there. Some states are stricter than others on guns, so not everyone is aware that there are places where seeing guns is a very regular occurrence.

About a quarter of the US population owns guns, so it's likely not that far off.

Not when 73 million are children, and 9 million more are 80 and older and 3 million are incarcerated,

324 million minus 72, minus 9 million, minus 3 million, etc.

You are probably using some misquote of number of housholds with gun(s)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Pew is sometimes called centrist, but they are hard core conservative.

Pew is sometimes called centrist, but they are hard core conservative.

It's households. Which is a better measure. If my parent or kid has a gun then I have access to one.

Gun ownership in the US

The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the U.S., not including weapons owned by the military. Of these, 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns.[21] In that same year, the Census bureau stated the population of people in the U.S. at 306 million.[22]

The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the U.S., not including weapons owned by the military. Of these, 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns.[21] In that same year, the Census bureau stated the population of people in the U.S. at 306 million.[22]

What the Pew research does not account for though, is that household firearms ownership hit a high again in the 1993-1994 timeframe where household gun ownership exceeded 50% according to Gallup polls. The Gallup polls further show that household firearm ownership currently exceeds 40% and that the long-term trend is a sharp decline in polling for stricter gun control laws. Lastly, Gallup polling has consistently been over 65% against, when asking whether there should be bans on possession of handguns.[26]

There's an estimated 400M guns in America. Not every one of those is semi-auto, but a good amount are.

My only point to /u/AfrikaCorps was the statistical exaggeration. I have never been opposed to private individual gun ownership and if you want a few tanks, go get them throw in some missiles as well.

It's interesting you refer to guns as "powerful weapons that facilitate death". Alcohol and nicotine are both deadly, and are both taxed and regulated by the government, AND contribute to death on a much more massive scale. Those deaths include second hand, non-consenting parties. Where are the marches to put a stop to this? No, instead we see marches that coincidentally ficilitate TPTB's agenda, as we have for countless other questionable qonquests by our government. To top this all off, you refer the bashing Trump™ as some political tactic? Holy cow buddy.

When was the last time someone marched into a school and forced schoolkids to overdose on alcohol and tobacco, though?

Are you saying there are no school kids that get drunk or smoke cigs?

Nope. But but the difference is forcing someone else to do it.

Somebody shooting me against my will is def different from me choosing to get a drink or ten, even though the drinks will also kill me (in a few decades, maybe).

First off, you can absolutely die of alcohol poisoning... and there are proven effects from drinking in general... let alone under-age.

Also, you have very little control over someone drunk hitting and killing you in their car, or deciding to get violent.

You also have very little control over the air you breathe, with the effects of second hand smoke being insidious.

Alcohol and nicotine are not deadly in small, controlled doses. 5.56mm rounds are very deadly even in a single serving.

People have done all kinds of protesting, marching, and legislation to prevent these deaths. Idk where you have been, but we've had decades of outrage over alcohol and cigarette deaths.

Dude, trump bashing is the go-to strategy for the left.

Yes because if we stop people from buying guns gun violence stops just like in Chicago lol oh wait no its a fucking war zone now because only criminals have guns now so they have no reason to fear the average citizen. Guns are a deterrent they don't need to be used or even on display to be effective in stopping violent crime.

Have you even been to Chicago? Do you know where the guns come from in most Chicago crime? If guns are a deterrent then why does the US have the highest gun ownership in the modern world and still suffer drastically more shootings than other nations

Plenty of people everyday on social media scream for that " no one needs guns" and "guns only exist to kill people". I literally see it everyday, so yes, maybe your not trying to take all guns away...but there is definitely people who want to.

/r/nowttyg

Bold move cotton, expecting the mouth breathers on this subreddit to understand that sort of nuance is an uphill battle.

I understand perfectly. The weapons in question are seen as devices used solely for efficient killing, and people think that regular citizens shouldn't have them. I get it.

My issue is that the definitions by which they are using justify taking them away. "Semi Automatic", "Assault". etc,. What happens in 5 years when they come for "Semi Automatic Handguns"? "Assault Shotguns" and the like?

Paint any gun all black and suddenly it's "military style" or "Tactical" and a scary, efficient killing machine.

Point is, all guns are fucking dangerous. All guns are efficient killing machines. Most guns today are semi automatics. More handguns kill than rifles or shotguns, but they're coming after AR15's because its the weapon of choice for mass killers.

Its cliche for me to say "slippery slope" and all that but it fucking IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. People who want to kill are going to find a way to kill. SUre, we can reduce how efficiently they can do it, but at what cost? Removing people's ability to defend themselves? How do you play out a scenario where guns are banned and someone is getting robbed at gunpoint?

"Coming for your guns" "going to ban firearms" are mindless statements regurgitated to keep you afraid and loyal

I still don't think you understand...

I understand perfectly.

What happens in 5 years when they come for

Defend ourselves from what though? Burglers and gang bangers? If so, is an AR-15 really even a viable home defense weapon? I admittedly dont own one but I have shot them plenty at ranges and any rifle seemed a tad to big to pull out from nightstand. Or is a fear the government will come and take more than guns and we the people would theoretically need them to fight back and shoot government troops invading our homes?

Government tryanny

What does that mean though? Is that like, no higher taxes or don't take my land via eminent domain or what? And does that mean these weapons are needed to kill government soldiers? Just trying to understand what is being talked about here.

Well the where were you guys when they spent the last 15 years destroying the 4th Amendment?

I think the US is showing many signs of a tryannical government however I don't know the tipping point for a public mutiny.

When people made slavery illegal, it was seen as a slippery slope by those left behind by society.

When they made homosexuality legal, it was seen as a slippery slope by those lagging behind the rest of society.

The 'slippery slope' argument tends to be used by people who can't logically argue with the point being discussed (in this case assault rifles), so they try and extend it to things that aren't being discussed.

It's a shitty form of discussion.

Except both your arguments are in cases where we were awarding equal rights to people who weren't being treated equally. In this case we are talking about restricting everyone's rights based on the actions of a few sick outliers and that's what makes it a slippery slope.

Not the same at all.

Why do you need the guns?

Source: im australian lol

No way to just take the guns, too many on the market already. Banning or restricting guns would just make it so only criminals have guns.

Also self defense against a criminal with a gun, maybe someone breaking and entering my home. Cops are not quick enough to save lives but being able to defend myself at any instant is quick enough.

Make it a criminal offense to own a gun so that if a gun is seen anywhere your gun gets removed. Before the hard ban is put in place, have a "buy back" period where you can sell your guns to the government for cash so you'll have cash in hand if you really need money and your reason for turning to crime is because you need financial help and can't get it. If someone is breaking and entering into your home, you have two options for how you want to store your gun.

1. Store it with the bullets in it, somewhere where you can get it easily when someone is breaking and entering. From what I've heard this is illegal, and if not it is plain bad practice and a safety issue if you have anything like kids. Not viable if you want to be a law abiding citizen.
2. Store it with bullets in case. I think this is also bad, but you would need to get to your gun case and find your keys to get the gun to shoot the guy, and if he had a gun you'd already be dead.
3. Store it without bullets out of case. It takes a bit to load the damn thing, and this seems illegal too. Any added time onto the process of getting a gun makes murdering a man unviable.
4. Store it without bullets in case, which is the most law abiding option. It's also completely unviable because you'd be dead where you stand trying to find the keys to unlock the case even before you run over to the other side of the house to get the bullets.

Just get really good at throwing knives.

I won’t have to get good at throwing knives I have an ar hehe.

The cops are called and your gun is taken away.

I don't make the rules

Yeah that would end in a second civil war if cops came knocking to take guns.

You could have gotten cash for it, but you decided to keep it. Why do you need a gun? Are you planning on using it for breaking and entering? Mass murder? Other criminal methods?

You can do a lot of things with a rifle that’s fun shoot at targets, hunt animals for food. It doesn’t have to malicious.

why do you want to

Honestly we don't, but if the cops still have them then making them illegal for non-cops doesn't address the problem. The ban doesn't address the problem. This whole thing is for a symbolic pile of nothing. If the next shooter kills only 14 people with a slightly slower gun, what's the difference? We're not dealing with the mental health issues. We're not dealing with the safety issue. We're kicking the can down the road. If we're going to pass a bunch of pretend reforms that only have symbolic effect, I'm as against that as I am doing that in any other arena in life.

Train your cops better to make them stop using the guns on innocents and get rid of every other gun in the country. (( With the earlier posts here arguing about why people are trying to get rid of their rights, I'd like to point out you guys are walking around with the oldest constitution in the world because you're too lazy to try and reconsider the laws. ))

Honestly most of the problems with our government in our modern lives come from a watering down of our constitutional protections, not adherence. Privacy? Fully abrogated. Monopolies? Rarely broken up. Speech? Only in designated zones, at least on important matters. Separation of powers? not if there's a war on. And police actions that become 10 year clusterfucks don't count as wars, btw. Oh, and where's your permit for that peaceable assembly, citizen? Speedy trial, no excessive bail, due process, assumption of innocence? Not if you're poor, not if you're muslim, especially not if you're brown poor AND muslim.

And I'm betting if anyone came gunning for any of that in your constitution you'd be out in the street, but for some reason the guns thing is just outmoded. Well I think the founders were pretty smart, and they had good reasons for the second amendment, reasons that, like the other amendments, stand the test of time. If you want to get people together and amend the constitution, get cracking and good for you.

Weren't their reasons for the second amendment at the time that they were actively under attack? Wasn't it more okay for that at the time because it was only muskets? Would your founding fathers be okay with people casually owning weapons exclusively made for murder when there is no war on their soil?

Haven't we been at war for ages now? It's just not super severe in terms of needing men conscripted and we've got enough brainwashed high school students joining and stuff, right? I don't know much about modern history or current events. I've heard stories of army people pushing for people to join and stuff, but I don't know much.

The founders wanted the public armed because they considered it an explicit defense against tyranny. They had no illusions about the nature of humanity and the necessary implication is if you arm everyone the good outnumber the bad. I do not doubt for a second that if they were around, and you showed them the fatal force statistics for the police in this country, they would not say the second amendment had become unnecessary.

Obviously we don't want individuals with nuclear arms. Just as obviously I don't think there's a lot of social pressure behind the idea of disarming people who live in rural areas with predators, or who hunt for a good portion of their calories. Somewhere we should codify what is a good idea for individuals to own. But personally I see no reason to ban a gun, any gun, used by a police force, national guard, or other law enforcement agency within the confines of our country. I also think it's completely futile to ban something that is easily importable from Mexico, or easily modified at home. Extending magazines require simple tools that anyone has in their garage and a few hours. And we have such a history with all these weapons, and so many, that banning them just moves a few onto the black market. Any law that's plainly unconstitutional, or unenforceable, or futile is a complete waste of time. You can't bubble-wrap the world. Guns are a simple technology and impossible to eliminate completely.

I feel the same way about gun laws as I do about shoe checks at the airport: it's a fucking stupid waste. Time and energy should be spent on doing things that achieve results, not symbolic gestures designed to put a segment of the population back to sleep.

You're never going to be 100% efficient, determined people (gangmembers etc) will find a way to obtain weapons no matter what. However, you can easily stop teenagers from getting access to guns (unless they're determined and want to seek out gangmembers to buy illegaly from which is very scary for your avg. teen).

You can also easily stop all the shootings from roadrage etc.

And you can stop selling ammo to kids!

Stopping these obvious things, is not much of a slippery slope. It is the only sensible thing to do. No kids need fucking ARs or to be able to buy ammo when they're under 18 (or 21 for that matter).

Gang bangers are teens. Most gang bangers are raised in these environments because their parents or family members are gang bangers.

What stopped a teen in Utah from making bombs? Theyre illegal are they not? As far as I know in my state you have to be 18 to buy a firearm and ammo but what stops the people younger than 18 from buying it from their homie down the street?

When I was in highschool I knew many "thugs" who had illegal fire arms either from people they knew or they bought them off of the Dark Web when SilkRoad was still a thing.

What stops the criminal from buying a gun?

I dont think its the gun thats a problem. It is our culture, society and they way we treat mental health.

but what stops the people younger than 18 from buying it from their homie down the street? When I was in highschool I knew many "thugs"

Most teens don't know thugs, you must have been in a bad neighborhood. For most teens it will be a scary experience to try to contact some gangbangers to buy illegal guns. They will be too afraid to get mugged etc.

Secondly, after gun-control, the price on illegal weapons will explode (pardon the pun). So this will further discourage.

Not a bad area just a middle of no where town where people go to hide and since its near empty many people just use it to stash and a middle point.

Again though some people I knew bought them off of Silk road. Although SilkRoad is full of scammers now there are other places.

But the criminal underworld will still have them just like how drugs and booze worked out. Many years later booze was made legal and the war on drugs is still not successful at all.

Yes the criminal underworld will still have them, however they will be more expensive and much less of them. This can't be bad right? Also criminals/gangmembers tend to be shooting mostly at each other so who cares if one gangmember shoots another? Most people who get shot is by their neighbour, familymember, jalous spouse/lover etc. and they wont have easy access to guns.

You are right. That or we will see an increase in murders woth other weapons.

Human life is human life. We should look for the root and not a band aid like banning a tool that any person can use for the wrong or right reasons.

Like why do people want be in a gang? Why do people rather kill than get a divorce or talk it out? Why is family shooting family? Let's get to the root not scratch the surface hoping it will work

Of course the root issues should be addressed, but a big issue is probably inequality. I don't think you can ever solve inequality in the US because the US is built on it and based on it.

That or we will see an increase in murders woth other weapons.

I don't think this has been observed in other countries. Even so it doesn't matter so long as the total number of murders is going down.

Inequality of what? Youre telling me that hard work and self motivation doesnt get you anywhere? I am a man of color and with these two things I have gotten a pretty decent job and taking care of a pretty good size family at my age and still the only bread maker. Also the state I live in doesnt help at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Very bottom chart. Sure homicides reduced but again not by a lot. You even saw a homicide spike after the gun ban in 99 when the gun ban was in 96 for Australia.

Youre telling me France the worlds most gun restricted place on the Earth yet people still some how was able to get fully automatic AK 47s and RPGs. They got a grenade launcher in France. I mean cmon now.

Sure they went through terroist and gun connections but its crazy what a man the the armed forces like Navy Army Marine Corp or Air Force that works in an Armoury can get you. Fully automatic guns and actual military grade gear. Go ahead and ban. These people will be here to sell you your tax dollar equipment back to you. These are schemes still going on now a days. Recently a group was caught doing this but after he made a small fortune and was doing for years at many bases he was stationed at. Fuck in my old military town someone gut the gate and stole a loaded AT4 rocket launcher from the base. Base was shut down and on lock but they person still got away. I wonder where it is now?

Just because criminals and terrorists are able to find weapons if they are highly motivated, doesn't mean it doesn't help to reduce things like school shootings! Your average french teen is not going to be able to get any kind of weapons, especially ARs.

Inequality of what?

Of income of course. There is huge inequality in the US. You might have 'made it' but there is likely still an extremely high gap up to the 1%'ers or 0.1%'ers for you. Inequality causes discontent, if f.ex. everybody is poor there is less discontent than if everybody is poor except for 1%.

Yet the teen in Utah recently skipped guns and went to bombs. Ok another example is in France when someone decided to use a truck on a crowd. Or here in America when someone used a Dodge Charger to hit a mob. Or in New york when someone decieded to drive on the sidewalk and run people over. We have more than enough regulation on cars might as well make them illegal.

http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics

Cars kill the most in the US. People talk on their phones, text, go on social media, etc etc. People drive without insurance, license or registration. There are many drivers like that on the road.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/676783/Calais-migrants-armed-dangerous-gun-bullets-wounds-police-France

So the refugees they are willingly taking seemed to be coming into the country very armed. Makes you think if these laws will help protect against more mass shootings like the Charlie Hebdo attack because ALL mass shootings are alike and can be avoided if he skip the tool part and see what the root problem is.

No i didnt "make it". I live simple, modest, and try not to get things I dont need. Many people now a days are too into consumerism and everything else to distract them than what actually matters. People are willing to pay thousands for a phone but dont care they could have spent that somewhere else. People are willing to buy BMWs but refuse to spend that somewhere else.

People talk about guns and violence instead of addressing why people are resorting to violence instead of trying to make actual change?

Why do people rather loot and rob their own neighborhood stores than actually rob and loot people that are the actual cause of their problems.

People say fuck the police but as far as I know many people call the police when they feel like theyre being wronged even the people that say that. Because of this no one wants to be a police officer thus putting strains on the police force making theme choose calls, over work themselves, and cause further strain on a society that we dont need at all.

Why is income inequal for all? What is the root? Its not guns thats for sure.

I'd imagine most road rage shootings are done with a handgun. You need to be 21 and have permission from a sheriff (or something similar) in most places to buy those.

Might as well raise the driving age to 21 or maybe even 25 right? Save the kids! Way more kids die from car accidents than from guns. STOP KIDS DRIVING! It is the only sensible thing! If only you cared about children.... /s

And you said it yourself.... Gun control doesn't work and if we have it, only criminals like gang members will have access... Seems like a sensible thing to do.

Whataboutism at its worst...

I didn't say it doesn't work! I said only the most determined people will have guns. I'd much rather a few gangmembers have guns than my crazy neighbour... I don't regularly come into contact with gangbangers so I would be much safer. And this is what it would be for most people.
Secondly, if there is strict guncontrol like in most of the world, then a burglar/robber won't even have a gun because he knows the homeowner doesn't likely have one either, so why should he go though the trouble/risk/expense of obtaining one? it's not necessary. This is also why until recently regular police in the UK didn't even carry guns at all! (they do now afaik due to 'terrorism' BS).

So yes, it DOES work.

Determined people having guns when they are not allowed to means that gun control doesn't work (absolutely). Sure it may mostly work because most people obey most laws, but if you wanted to get a gun then you could. I'd rather neither your crazy neighbor or a gang banger have guns, but if they want them they can get them.

If only gang members and determined criminals have guns, why wouldn't they expand their area of operations? The reason they don't now if because there is resistance of some sort. Less resistance means lower barriers to expansion. They'd go through the effort to get it because it would be a huge force multiplier and there would be very little chance that it would be matched.

The 'terrorism BS' kind of proves my point. Police weren't carrying guns and then a whole lot of bad shit started happening so they needed to carry guns. Little resistance, bad outcomes, correcting to try and stop more bad outcomes.

Cliche but 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is still true. People kill people mostly due to socioeconomic factors. The way to lower murder is to try and fix these things. Ban guns and leave the underlying situation in a bad spot and people will just kill each other with illegal guns or some other means.

means that gun control doesn't work

Gun control works if it means less people get shot than without it. If you remove 90% (?) of guns from the population, you can be certain that a lot less people are going to get shot.

Simple really.

It works just fine in all other countries that have it.

SUre, we can reduce how efficiently they can do it, but at what cost? Removing people's ability to defend themselves? How do you play out a scenario where guns are banned and someone is getting robbed at gunpoint?

I need an ICBM to effectively protect myself from a tyrannical governmnet.

Nobody cares that it's painted black LOL or that it looks "military style". The one criteria for shit like this is that it can be used to kill a large amount of people in a small amount of time with minimal training.

Yeah, strawmen work wonders as arguments, right?

Intelligence is understanding the difference between an ad hominem and a straw man.

Removed. Rule 10.

Just ban me mouth breathers.

That's a blatant lie. When your go to is Australia or the U.K., you want to fucking ban guns. Have the fucking balls to actually stand up for what you want, instead of hiding behind fake positions. If you really cared about stopping violence and thought the deadliest guns were the issue, you'd go after handguns instead of AR-15s. You people aren't, though. If you could snap your finger and change the law tomorrow with zero negative political consequences, the majority of Democrats would support repealing the 2nd. They just did a poll showing 51% of Democrats want a total ban on guns. Yes, you people do want to take guns away.

When a majority of your party wants to seize our guns, I think we have every damn right to say you're after the guns.

Gonna need a source on that "51% of democrats support outlawing all guns" claim. Just read an article on fivethirtyeight that had democrat support for banning all guns at only 15%....

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/poll-82-dems-favor-banning-semiautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

Replied elsewhere but I think that article only includes support and strongly support, not somewhat support. IIRC, it was 51 when including somewhat supports. Maybe I heard the number somewhere else and mixed it up, but it's near as makes no difference: 39/41 support total 2nd repeal. Over 70% support banning ALL semiautos, which includes basically all handguns.

The Democrats want to take guns. The "no one wants to take your guns" thing is a lie. At bare minimum, nearly 40% of Democrats want to take my guns. That's basically the same size or bigger of the Bernie wing of the party.

Downvoted for facts, nice going.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

Your party... Stop making it us vs them. Thay the vicious cycle which keeps us fighting.

The issue there is that every state has different gun laws.

Powerful weapons that facilitate death eh? Right, because a .223 caliber hunting rifle thay nobody wants to ban is nowhere near as powerful as a .223 scary, black "assault rifle" that has an extending stock, pistol grip, and other comfort based features right? Even though they shoot the same size round at the same velocity over the same distance. The look of the gun and the little plastic add-ons make it so much more deadly.

Trying to restrict people that shouldn't have a gun from getting one? I understand that, and agree with it. Except...dude in Florida shouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun, if the local police and fbi had actually done their jobs and followed up on this kid. The laws are in place, but the system failed and he still got his guns.

What about pistols? Nobody cries about those, when they're just as deadly and probably more efficient in a school shooting. Remember virginia tech? Two pistols, no rifles, 32 dead.

Following your line of reasoning and backing it up with numbers...

According to the FBI, in 2014, there were 8,124 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 5,562 of those attributed to handguns.[7] The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. in 2010.[9] The FBI breaks down the gun-related homicides in 2010 by weapon: 6,009 involved a handgun, 358 involved a rifle, and 1,939 involved an unspecified type of firearm.[10] In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the U.S. were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[74] Sources and the following subsection dives into [Mass hootings].(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Mass_shootings) which goes on to say: Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths using gun between 1980 and 2008.[115] Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[16] and the frequency of these events had steadily declined between 1994 and 2007. Between 2007 and 2013, the rate of active shooter incidents per year in the US has increased.[17][18]

A few things. 8,000 - 10,000 deaths strikes me as extremely low. And mass shootings have increased while general gun violence dropped 20%?

Who would think that teenagers having cheap/easy access to semi automatic rifles could be a bad idea?

I didn't see teenagers mentioned in any of the preceding quotes.

School shootings are by far the most common mass shootings and they're the topic of the post...

School shooting are in no way the most common.

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data/2017

They might get more media coverage. But there have been a few of those sure. But hundreds of other ones. It's not even close really.

This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever read. There are mass shootings (4 or more) in major cities every weekend due to gang violence. There's like 1 mass shooting in a school every year in this country.

there's like 1 school shooting every year

There were 5 in the past month.

Lol you didn't actually quote me, you literally changed the wording of my post to create a strawman, how pathetic is that

I literally said "mass shooting in a school" because we are discussing mass shootings.

The post is about students marching in protest for gun control, which was most likely sparked by the fact that 20 students have been killed in the past 30 days...

Because you made the idiotic statement "School shootings are by far the most common mass shootings and they're the topic of the post..." which is objectively untrue. Mass shootings happen every weekend, sometimes in multiple cities during the same weekend, whereas mass shootings in schools happen very rarely.

You still have not acknowledged the fact that you intentionally misquoted me to create a straw man argument. That's pathetically dishonest behavior

School shootings are by far the most common mass shootings and they're the topic of the post...

This couldn't be further from the truth. The most common scenario is domestic violence theater often involving a mentally unstable spouse/partner who takes out the wife/girlfriend and family members.

8000-10000 sounds about right. With a homicide rate of about 4/100k and about a quarter being committed without guns, that would mean about 8000-10000 homicides with guns per year.

I think this very well may be an engineered attempt to get citizens to demand proper rifles be taken away from them, but....

What about pistols? Nobody cries about those, when they're just as deadly and probably more efficient in a school shooting situation.

A cop with a normal bullet proof vest is relatively safe from someone with a pistol, but stands no chance against someone with an AK- unless he is wearing a vest rated 3a with a heavy steel plate in it. Of course you could get shot in the face and die from a pistol, but I'm positive cops are much more willing to go up against someone whose rounds can't punch right through their vests.

I know rounds from AKs can go through bricks. Don't believe pistol rounds can.

If you've ever shot both an AK-47 and a pistol, you wouldn't sincerely say "they're just as deadly."

Would you want to go up against someone with an AK or AR with a Glock and a standard issued bullet proof vest?

Good thing cops have access to rifles too.

And shotguns.

And swat teams.

And army issued apcs and other excess military gear.

Does that somehow disprove my point that an AK-47 is far more deadly than a handgun and cops are justly afraid of them bc standard bullet proof vests get punctured like paper? Or they can be shot through walls with them?

I thought the whole reason for this push to ban rifles was because of all the mass shootings in public locations, not because of mass amounts of cops getting killed by citizens wielding rifles.

The average citizen isn't walking around with kevlar on. If the issue is mass shootings, then yes, I do believe a pistol is just as deadly as a rifle, because typically none of the victims are wearing armor.

not really more deadly when going up against a soft fleshy body.

Suggest reading up on that.

Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: “One looks like a grenade went off in there,” says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/

The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.

The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

You cherry picked one thing i said and missed the entire point. I said that in these school/close quarters/public mass shootings, a pistol is just as DEADLY. Yes, obviously, a bigger faster bullet is going to do more visible DAMAGE, but in the situation being referred to, actual damage done doesnt matter. It may look worse to the eye, but either way, a pistol shot at close range to the head or body is typically going to be deadly. If you're dead, you're dead. You can't be more or less dead.

Again, the rifles that everyone is up in arms about and wants to ban, are the least used guns in these shootings. Just like in my Virginia tech example. As a matter of fact, the same thing took place at Sandy hook. The shooter brought a bushmaster ar15 and a saiga 12 ga shotgun, along with 4 pistols, to the school. He left the shotgun and rifle in the trunk of his car, and shot up the school with the pistols (even though the majority of the bullshit you read nowadays says he shot up the school with the AR...seems pretty fuckin fishy to me).

https://youtu.be/TNKPLoOBaY0

Proof that the rifle and shotgun were left in the car. There are tons of initial reports confirming that the pistols were the only weapons used at the school. There are even videos where you can literally see them pulling the rifle out of the trunk.

Look at those goal posts move!

Yes, all guns are potentially lethal. This is what you said, however, and it's patently incorrect.

Obviously yes .223 are more powerful than the typical 9mm or 45 round, but not really more deadly when going up against a soft fleshy body.

What does "more deadly" mean to you? The devastation caused by a .223 compared to a 9mm is like the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

It's absolutely deadlier.

Moving goal posts? You derailed this discussion with your first response when you ignored my point. Why is everyone trying to ban/severely limit access to "assault rifles" when that is statistically the least used weapon out of all mass shootings? Or when there are equally as powerful bolt action hunting rifles that shoot the same round? Pistols are used in the majority of shootings and overall have more deaths attributed to them, even though they shoot a smaller round.

People that aren't educated when it comes to firearms swear like throwing a bolt takes so much longer. It takes a fraction of a second to throw a bolt and chamber the next round, it's not a fuckin musket that has to be hand loaded with powder.

So, again, if AR style rifles arent the #1 firearm responsible for mass shooting deaths, why is that what everyone is in a frenzy to ban?

You contended a handgun and an AR-15 are just as deadly when it comes to the devastation they cause to human flesh.

I corrected this false assertion.

Look up "recent mass shootings AR-15" and you'll see why many want them banned. Especially considering you now know that

not really more deadly when going up against a soft fleshy body.

is the statement of someone who doesn't know weaponry.

For the record, I don't want to see any gun bans, but I'm not going to be disingenuous and say your odds of ending a life are much higher if you're using a high-velocity rifle round versus a pistol round. I also take into consideration that cops are, quite correctly, afraid to face someone with a proper rifle as their vests don't offer protection.

not really more deadly when going up against a soft fleshy body.

This is your only point that I responded to and corrected. Any other direction the discussion went is totally on you.

I see you've decided to ignore my question for a second time. I'm not going to continue this discussion after this post because you obviously have no answer, and continue to cherry pick what I'm saying and divert the discussion to prove a point that I never tried to prove.

I never said a rifle round does the same amount of damage to flesh. I said that shooting unarmored humans, from what basically amounts to point blank range, with a pistol, has just as much chance to kill someone as using a rifle. It's like saying if you threw a grenade into a crowded room, versus a bomb, obviously the bomb will do more collateral damage because it has more force behind it, but at that range, the people are going to die regardless. And since pistols are used much, much more frequently than rifles in these situatuons, I ask again, why are rifles specifically getting the attention? I doubt you will answer, but maybe the third time is a charm. Good day.

I sincerely don't think you know what you're talking about. There's no way you can spin this sentence into a statement that makes sense factually.

Obviously yes .223 are more powerful than the typical 9mm or 45 round, but not really more deadly when going up against a soft fleshy body.

And:

It was to illustrate that they aren't wearing armor because who the fuck walks around with Kevlar on.

Who gives a fuck? You're still a hell of a lot more likely to survive aa round from a handgun that a .223.

Also, I've owned guns and have been shooting for over 10 years so yes, I do have a knowledge of firearms and have seen what each can do.

Well, maybe. You don't come off that way.

I have answered your question repeatedly, but I will restate the answers as you apparently missed them:

AR-15s are being targeted in particular because they have been used in so very many mass shootings and the populace associates them with mass shootings. Google "mass shootings ar-15s." I don't care if you have some youtube videos saying one particular school shooting ddn't use an AR. A lot of them inarguably did, and, moreover, we're talking about why they're being targeted so the only thing that matters is what the populace believes.

Contrary to what you stated, they are much more deadly when striking a "soft fleshy body." As I showed you, a 9mm slug can be stopped by bone whereas a .223 will turn that bone to dust.

Cops are logically intimidated by them as they'll punch right through their vests and many people believe law enforcement would have entered scenes of mass shootings if they didn't know they were totally outgunned.

Ar-!5s can cycle through many rounds per minute, have a high capacity, and reloading is a simple easy process. Maybe you weren't alive during the last "assault weapons" ban, but the number of rounds a rifle or pistol could hold was a major point in the bill.

You just keep repeating the same bullshit man I'm sorry but I don't know where you get your info.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

So you can pick out one out of what, 5, reasons I gave you as questionable and think you're holding your own in an argument?

OK.

Well, statista doesn't define what a "mass shooting" is. In case you haven't been talking to other Americans, lately, or seen the millions of kids walkign out of school- the populace is specifically concerned with school shootings.

Maybe you've noticed? The president is talking about arming teachers, there's strife between the NRA and lawmakers, 2nd Amendment advocates are up in arms.....all because of these school shootings.

A lot of the school shootings have been carried out by AR-15s. That's why, as you were wondering before, and I've painfully explained over and over, there is a strong desire to ban this specific rifle.

Jesus christ youre dense. No, the entire point I've been making for this whole inane discussion is that ar15 rifles are NOT THE CULPRIT and are not responsible for anywhere near as many shooting deaths as pistols, yet everyone is up an arms about banning them, claiming that it's because most/all shooters use them more often than any other gun. Yet you CONTINUE ignoring that, and picking other things I said to try and refute, and then go on to tell me some bullshit like "Google ar 15 mass shootings" as if that is supposed to prove something. I also didn't realize stopping school shootings was more important than stopping mass shootings in general, I don't know where you get this bs from. Maybe you watch too much mainstream news and buy into whatever is being hyped at that moment. It's a manufactured problem that is made to seem much more common than it actually is.

Well, i did, and here are some more stats on the same thing I linked you to in my last post - this time from the FBI. Look at the numbers and tell me why ar15s are the issue if they are only responsible for about 3% of shooting deaths from firearms, while pistols make up over 70%? Deadliness/damage/whatever else you keep whining about is a non-issue because rifles are RARELY USED in comparison. More people still died at the hands of pistols, and more shootings have occurred with pistols.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

I also didn't realize stopping school shootings was more important than stopping mass shootings in general, I don't know where you get this bs from.

Because society tends to place a higher value on children's lives? Especially in school?

I can tell you're very upset, but I haven't personally attacked or insulted you. I expect the same from you.

Are you a regular here? Either way you should be familiar with the sidebar.

Yeah, handguns kill more ppl than rifles.

You're in a thread about kids walking out of school due to school shootings. Asking why people want the Ar-15 banned. It's because Ar-15s have often been recently used in school shootings.

Also the bunch of other reasons I gave you. I stated this already as well, it doesn't matter what statistics prove or what "the truth" is- it's what the populace believes that matters.

Got it?

Maybe they should start with trying to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of mass murderers who took us to war over nonsense like "Saddam threw babies out of incubators" or "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" or "Qaddafi is a big meanie".

Maybe we should find out who really killed JFK or who was really behind the obvious psyop in Las Vegas before we give the government a monopoly on "powerful weapons the facilitate death". This is government whose agents are alowed to lie to us and propagandize to us, but aren't required to help us (like the cops in this case who sat outside while the shooting happened).

These goofy shooting stories are getting old and no matter how many shootings the "deep state" pulls off, fakes, or allows to happen, they aren't getting our guns.

Chipping away at the second amendment is a slippery slope. Where do we stop? Also how many kids have died from school shootings in the last 10 Years here? 170 something? 4000 kids die a year from texting and driving. It’s all a damn shame in just trying to put numbers in perspective when we’re talking about chipping away at constitutional rights.

Let's stop after mentally unstable people and violent criminals.

That's how right wing authoritarianism works. Keep the scared and controlled.

Left wing authoritarianism is very similar, but fear is manipulated into social good and equality until enough power is consolidated at the top and it invariably becomes a dictatorship.

Right wing authoritarianism, in scholarly use, is adherence to authority appealing to prejudice while Left wing authoritarianism is more akin to anarchy. RWA supports government. LWA tears it down. It works out that Right Wing Authoritarianism in the psychological sense aligns almost exclusively with right wing politics.

I think we have to compensate for the change in ideals and how imperfect "left vs right" is for trying to distill ideologies from politics. The left in the US favors government intervention in peoples lives from social medicine to full communism.

We're trying to restrict access to powerful weapons that facilitate death.

Yeah, that's what all guns are. They are actually trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you don't think this is the end goal, you are completely missing it. The definition of what's "scary" and "assault" whatever will just slowly change over time so all guns are banned. That's the plan here.

There's a massive difference between restricting access to semi automatic rifles and banning all guns.

Not in my opinion. It's all one big slippery slope to gun confiscation. But hey, I'm just one of those weird people who think that freedom has inherent risks and we as a people have demanded too much pretend safety at the expense of freedoms.

So, I have a question for you: Will the police and other government agents still get to use semi-automatic rifles?

I mean to keep semi automatic rifles from people that shouldn't have them; like kids, the mentally unwell, and people that haven't received any kind of training to safely operate it.

Got it. And who gets to make those definitions of the people who shouldn't have them? Honestly asking.

Most guns are at a minimum semi-automatic. Do you even know what the term means?

What do you mean "what does the term mean"? Fucking everybody knows what a semi automatic rifle is, 1 pull=1 shot. There's absolutely no reason that a kid that isn't legally allowed to drink alcohol to have the ability to walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 or really any semi automatic rifle.

If you want to live in a nanny-state, you could try moving to the UK

Fuck me for wanting to keep murder machines out of the hands of people who shouldn't have murder machines, right?

The problem is that it won't ever happen. You will always have shitheads with access to weapons, especially in a place as large as the US. We were built upon the principle that our government won't always be there to protect us, so we need to have the means to defend ourselves. We still have laws to punish those that are actually violent, but there is absolutely no reason to punish those that aren't. If you wish to live in a place where the government prefers to take responsibility for defending a disarmed populous, you are free to move to a European country that already supports those ideals.

Canada, Australia, and the UK put in extremely heavy regulations and they don't have any theoretical NRA propaganda about "only criminals will have guns" bullshit happening ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I never said take guns from good guys, I said take guns away from people that shouldn't have them m

Semi automatic guns include every handgun. I suppose you'll still allow single shot or musket style guns?

I never said anything about semi automatic guns, I said semi automatic rifles.

And the difference is?

How am I trolling or lying? And semi automatic rifles are cheap, high capacity, and high caliber - things that appeal to mass murderers.

Everybody knows what a semi automatic rifle is, 1 pull=1 shot.

That's the definition of a semi automatic gun as well. You made no distinction in your comment claiming to know the definition

What? How am I lying? That's exactly what semi-automatic means.

Again, you're either trolling or can't face your own lies.

Couple things going on here that I think you're being purposefully obtuse about, but I'll try to explain in case you are willing to listen/have a discussion.

Semi automatic means 1 pull 1 shot. Your comment made no distinction between a semi automatic GUN and a semi automatic RIFLE. That is the question the person asked you. That's the question I asked you.

So far, in another comment the difference you've given is "And how can you not tell the difference between a gun and a rifle? Guns are to rifles as vehicles are to semi trucks." Which is really not even an answer, unless you're admitting you're one of those who sees big black gun = bad.

So again, I'll ask

And the difference is?

Dude what the hell are you going on about? He asked about the term "semi automatic" which people often confuse with "automatic", implying he's using it as an excuse to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about. He made no mention of defining semi automatic rifle.

Every semi automatic gun, including semi automatic rifles and most handguns, fires 1 round per trigger pull. That's why they're called semi automatic.

The difference between a semi automatic rifle and a semi automatic handgun is that rifles have a higher ammunition capacity, shoot higher caliber rounds, and they're a hell of a lot easier to accurately aim than a handgun (plus they're frequently cheaper, and the big/black/scary stereotype helps with the whole terror thing). Handguns are limited in capacity, limited in caliber, have relatively poor accuracy, and require much more training to use to its full potential.

Again, and the difference is? How do you tell the difference between the two?

What exactly makes semi automatic rifles considerably more dangerous than handguns? Handguns are easier to conceal. They can still fire some of the same rounds. You can still get extended magazines for them. The Virginia Tech shooting was carried out with handguns, as was the Monash University shooting in Australia.

They're much higher caliber and higher capacity by default and that's why they're a go-to for many mass shooters. I'd be fine with restricting semi auto handguns but they're by far the most used for self defense purposes due to efficiency and size, plus CCW is already a thing

Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data. Handguns killed nine times as many persons as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined.

And 8 out of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history used semi automatic rifles. I understand that handguns are more frequently used in one-on-one murders but that doesn't excuse the fact that you can kill a hell of a lot more people with a hell of a lot more accuracy with an AR.

I'd consider restricting semi auto handguns but the self defense benefits definitely outweigh the mass murder cons.

The same is true for rifles though. More people are stabbed with knives or beat to death each year than get killed by rifles. The AR-15 is much better for home defense than a shotgun or handgun. The Sutherland Springs church shooter was stopped by a private citizen with an AR-15.

Please name one official trying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Then please explain to us how to repeal an amendment.

Your argument work better for cars, which cause more death per year. Where are the people pushing to ban all car then?
Death machines that can be used for mass destruction.
Sure, they also have other uses, but we don't care about that.

Cars aren't engineered for slaughter, and there have been shitloads of regulations placed on auto manufacturers and cars to drastically improve safety over the past 50 years. Meanwhile the CDC isn't even allowed to research gun violence thanks to NRA lobbyists...

But by sheer numbers, cars and drug overdoses kill a lot more people than guns. If we really care about people's safety, those are two extremely changeable factors.

But we've actually done things to lower those fatality rates, while the CDC still can't research gun violence thanks to NRA lobbyists. Imagine the outrage if Ford was covering up their fatality rate by blocking the CDC from researching it. Anywho:

1) driver and car safety regulations have been put in place over the past 50 years and fatality rates have plummeted. In the 70's there were 30 fatalities per 100k people and in 2015 it was 11 per 100k even though car ownership has been booming. https://i.imgur.com/KxMv2ky.jpg

2) there are hundreds of drug abuse help programs in the US, and it's already illegal to possess most problematic drugs (unless you have a prescription obv).

So you'd be in favor people having to take an exam showing proficiency in firearm usage before they can purchase them?

Death machines that can be used for mass destruction.

A car is designed for transport and can kill.

A gun is designed to kill, and very little else.

Bad analogy is bad.

And yet, by sheer numbers, cars and drug overdoses cause a lot more deaths than guns. It seems like those are two extremely fixable problems, especially if we care about reducing unnecessary deaths.

Nobody's pushing a ban on cars because no one is pushing a ban on guns. Jesus dude, what a shitty comparison.

But since you wanted to draw the comparison, let's get started. Firearms are designed to kill. Their purpose has always been death and injury. Some use it for sport, but even the sports are based on accurate destruction.

Vehicles are designed to transport. Their purpose has always been transportation. Some use it for sport, but even the sports are based on accurate transportation.

You gonna ask why knives aren't banned in restaurants?

What are some phrases that keep you loyal to your side? Or is it only the GOP that is brainwashed?

Literally ended the comment showing how the left is brainwashed with trump hate.

You said "we" so I'm trying to figure out what group you identify with and what are those phrases that call you to action.

I can criticize my peers, you know. In this issue I identify with people who favor sensible advances in firearm regulation and increased access to mental healthcare. Many of my peers in this are also left leaning democrats who fall prey to left wing bias and assume anything Trump stands for is wrong.

Right wing media uses Obama, Hillary, and pelosi to turn conservatives against x issue. Left wing uses Trump to do the same.

I hate people like you. People so stupid its dangerous for the rest of us.

You don't even know shit about what you're talking about though.

Would you like to educate me or just ignore me because I'm not screeching about the 2nd amendment?

"We're trying to restrict access to powerful weapons that facilitate death." "We're trying to keep the weapons out of the Hands of dangerous people"

These extremely, extremely vague goals are what worries most people. Much like the mindless statements you pointed out, they are meaningless. What is a powerful weapon that facilitates death? Any gun can fit that description. Who are the "dangerous people" that we must be worried about? Again, depending on perspective, that can be anyone. I do agree that we need to take steps to provide better care for those suffering mental health issues, but what separates a little situational anxiety from, say, psychosis besides the judgement of another person? You have legit goals, I'm just worried about how you'd try to achieve them.

Very excellent points. I think we need to consider factors of the weapons like muzzle velocity and energy of the round. We need to consider legitimate applications like hunting as well. If you're hunting large bears or need defense against bears, a fuckin .22 ain't gonna do you a lot of good.

By dangerous I mean to say mentally unstable mostly. I think we have to accept that our culture is going to produce violent tragedies regardless of our actions, but we can at least shore those numbers up by researching the issues and limiting the likelihood or effectiveness of attacks. Be it gun, bomb, or poison.

Interesting point about the .22- even though it is a rediculously weak round, it is favored by many assassins, for lack of a better word. The bullet actually has a tendency to tumble and cause damage more likely to kill than, say and assault rifle round that might just punch through you doing less damage. To further the point- a .45 caliber round transfers more energy to a human target than a 10mm would, even though the 10mm is much more powerful. So you can see how much of a mess it is to tell the difference between a man-killer round and a legitimate hunting round. The lines get blurry.

I agree that these tragedies are a symptom of our society, and also agree that information is the best way to combat it. We're at an interesting time where we can share information but for some reason certain people just don't want to. We also have to beware of labels, which the powers that be seem to be pushing hard. It's the "terrorists" and "white nationalists" and "the militant left" we have to worry about. But these groups are made up of real people who turn to radicalism because there is something wrong in their life. Much like the guns, the lines are blurry. But there is an underlying problem that everyone is suffering from to push them to the point of radicalism. If we keep talking, it becomes more and more apparent what connects us.

Young women are a hivemind who follow the media narrative as holy gospel. Many young feminized men are right there with these young women trying to get laid. They manufacture consent to take away rights easily by manipulating the dumbest of our citizens: the youth.

This guy gets it.

Gets what? How to wrap wide swathes of people into one stereotype blanket statement? How to regurgitate propaganda? How to engage in ad hominem? Exactly what is he getting?

Men and women are different. Significantly so. Do you understand this?

I understand that men and women are different. However the difference varies by person, sometimes drastically so. And he just wrapped all women up in one giant blanket statement.

All women are women, do you agree?

With that statement? Yes. In this context? Not really. Every person is different, and not all people of the same gender are all the same. Physical attributes don't dictate personality.

HE gets that you can use a few buzz words and talking points without having to form your own opinion?

I see people here everyday begging to give up their rights. People demanding borders, restrictions on voting and forcing people to carry ID and those aren't the ones worried about getting shot.

[removed]

Let's not desecrate the corpse.

On top of that, we have a president who open advocated taking people's guns without due process

4D chess! He's pulling strings and making deals you can't understand! Draining swamps! He's one of the good guys, I swear! /s

It that the secret to playing 4D chess. I can say all the pro Trump stuff I want and as long as I put /s at the end, I won't be down voted to hell. /s

That's the thing isn't it. From the time of the constitutions you had 15 year old boys in the militia. Should they be able to buy guns? There are already restrictions in place, the kids protesting just a want additional restrictions. People act like it's weird and such an uncommon thought while many adults hold the same ideas.

Hell most of the Western world hold these ideas. Acting like the kids are the odd ones put is flipping the narrative.

Hell most of the Western world hold these ideas. Acting like the kids are the odd ones put is flipping the narrative.

because these kids are to young to know the time before the GOP went bonkers...

Here a nice graph of gun sales, and now tell me if these kids are really the odd ones.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/qTv5kl1vJH4q8k-RcPnE1ieBUSg=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CRNWBHMQZY3QZOTON3VX6VDMYU.png

The lack of year labels between '86 and 2012 is making me irrationally angry.

not only you.. I wanted to do a quick correlation between the sinking rate of homicides and the rise of sold firearms (to prove my theory that a signifcant push is made towards having the people feel less secure and thus buy more firearms, vote reactionary and ignore "secondary" threats like climate change) but I bloody can't find data in a usable format..

FBI crime stats are pretty comprehensive. There's also this chart of NICS background checks per year, which gives an approximate number of gun sales, but won't account for the entire secondary market, which is significant.

You mean provide more evidence to your hypothesis?

one day for sure..

My starting point would be comments like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I combined with the recurring rethoric that "xxx" will take the guns away. Method would be a correlation of weapons sales, crime statistics and percieved threat level within the society. If possible combined with voting patterns.

Proof Obama tried to take all our guns

those few victims they aquire on the way? Cost of doing busniess...

That's just disingenuous reasoning. The vast majority of guns are not used in crimes, the vast majority of gun owners do not commit gun crimes. You can balk at the mass purchase of guns all you want, firearm murders have been trending down, and so have mass shootings.

firearm murders have been trending down, and so have mass shootings.

This isn't true....

http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Go look at a chart that lists gun murders from the 80's to the most recent time you can find. Then you can determine yourself if an uptick in gun murders over the last few years would change the trend. The key word is TRENDING. And it looks like I was wrong about mass shootings. The US government uses 3 kills as the minimum for a mass shooting so thanks to major cities like Chicago and Detroit those are trending up. The point still remains that the vast majority of guns are not used in crimes, the majority of gun owners do not commit gun crimes. Most gun murders are related to gang/drug activity in inner cities too.

Lol it’s like blaming AAA for drunk drivers.

This country has been sliding left since long before you were born, and now that we’re bouncing off the left’s wall of absurdity we’re shifting right for the first time in a long time.

Still pretty conservative and right-wing in regards to the rest of the Western world. That would mean that all West European countries have been over the wall of absurdity since the labor movement after the industrial revolution.

Given that they’re currently experiencing a population crisis and demographic replacement, that wouldn’t be too far off.

Compared to the US? Not that different. As we have seen with the previous generations of migrants and all over the globe, fertility rate drops with education level. Immigration percentage in the US is 15%, UK the highest in Europe has 19%. Maybe we need some Mormons. Also how is displacement defined? One drop rule or something? In Europe we don't look down on interracial relations...

This country has been sliding left since long before you were born, and now that we’re bouncing off the left’s wall of absurdity we’re shifting right for the first time in a long time

1) I said the GOP went bonkers because the Tea Party strain is unwilling to compromise and thus to govern.

2) Please, do tell - in what way (except a few civil rights) did the US shift to the left from e.g. the 70ties?

3) left wall? ^{^}

Most people's history knowledge and understanding seems to extended back about 10 years at the most in this sub.

Brit here, can’t understand why the right to shoot people is so important. Media definitely showing this as an anti gun protest so interesting to hear from teachers and students in this saying otherwise. Media spin? Yes.

America is the odd one out. This country is made up of people that left the rest of the world for liberty and opportunity.

Working hard to support the gun industry. That man sold a lot of new NRA memberships last month.

A lot of people value safety over freedom so when high schoolers (including myself) are afraid of getting shot at school, they're going to do anything to prevent it even if it comes at the price of their rights.

Well you should look at history ...because look what happens after you lose your rights (hitter, Stalin ect)

You want to look at history? Ok. What about Australia, The UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, France, modern Germany, Sweden, Taiwan. It's almost like the slippery sloap fallacy isn't a good one and restrictions on your rights don't inherently lead to authoritarian rule. You do realize your other rights have restrictions? Like the people who say that the activists should be punished are saying they are breaking a restriction on their first amendment right to assembly, speech, and petition.

I'm sorry what? Do you not understand what I said or what I was getting at?

Idiots march and protest and have been forever, no ones stopping them...what is your point?

You chose to use two cases in which people took away rights in recent modern history as a justification to not inhibit any rights and I disagree because there's a lot more cases of similar countries who aren't anymore authoritarian for applying restrictions.

Most authoritarian bloodbath happen quickly. And always on a disarmed populace.

Freedom doesn't grant you safety, nor does giving up said freedom...safety isn't tied to rights or freedom.

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

Calling for stricter gun control is not 'literally begging the government to take their rights away'.

https://youtu.be/ktnSiBLIGiE

Holy shit the shill downvoted you en mass just because of posting a link. Damn.

That's literally what it is, by definition.

It’s literally not.

Yeah, it is. It's restricting those rights that we currently have. If you have the right to go out and purchase an AR-15 right now, changing it to ban the sale of them is losing rights. Just because it's only part of a right doesn't mean it isn't something you couldn't previously do, eshrined by the second amendment.

We keep talking about what is and what isn't taking away rights in the name of safety. What if we "restrict" other rights, such as freedom of religion to just the ones one party felt were safe? Would you be okay with that? What if we restricted speech to outlaw anything that could radicalize people, including anti-government or negative speech towards the government? Would that be losing rights or would it be restricting them for safety?

You are likely to come back with the whole "we are talking about guns" rhetoric here, but we are talking about rights and what it means to restrict/lose them in the name of safety. I know you likely don't want to approach the topic this way, but it's a reality you simply are going to have to face.

Death by a thousand cuts.

So what, 70% of gun owners literally want the government to ban guns? Thats around the percentage of gun owners in favor of tighter restrictions.

They literally want rights taken away. Every little piece that’s chipped away at the 2nd amendment is a bit more of your rights being taken away. You might like it, you might want it, 70% of gun owners might want it. Matters not, that’s still what’s happening so if you’d please not gas light us in real time I’d appreciate it.

I keep saying this and no one listens.

The second amendment exists to protect us from a tyrannical government, this is why I have been trying to buy surface to air missiles so I can shoot down drones.

I also need some heavy armaments to stop a tank from oppressing my neighborhood, but I cant seem to get my hands on one.

My militia will also need a few ICBMs to ensure our sovereignty.

No one listens because your argument is foolish. You think you’re making a good point but have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t need ICBMs and tanks to resist a tyrannical government. If the government was ordered to kill American citizens and behave tyrannically there would be large sections of the military that would refuse and defect, taking supplies and equipment, and trained leaders with them. An armed civilian population could definitely swing a conflict. Yes the US govt will have incredible fire power, but no tyrant wants to rule over a pile of rubble. They won’t be nuking the entire US to get the population to submit. I’m not just speaking hypothetically here, the US has had trouble combating guerrilla tactics and small arms - see Vietnam for example.

If the government was ordered to kill American citizens and behave tyrannically there would be large sections of the military that would refuse and defect, taking supplies and equipment, and trained leaders with them.

So what youre suggesting is that I dont need military grade hardware because in the unlikely event that the government decides to attack its own civilians the military which is made of American citizens will defend us?

Seems like youre advocating for the removal of military grade weapons and weapons not intended for self defense or hunting.

Yes the US govt will have incredible fire power, but no tyrant wants to rule over a pile of rubble.

No, but they have drones that can sit 1+ miles above your home and very accurately hit you with ordinance. Why cant I get a way of defending myself from that very real possibility? How many handguns or AR15s = 1 SAM?

They won’t be nuking the entire US to get the population to submit.

Not if I had a nuke to deter them

I’m not just speaking hypothetically here, the US has had trouble combating guerrilla tactics and small arms - see Vietnam for example.

There is a huge difference between the technologies involved and also Steve from accounting is not nearly as hardened as a Vietcong who has grown up in harsh conditions and used to living on the land.

Vietnam =/= Current day America.

Most Americans cant even handle hiking and camping for more than a few days, I doubt youll see anyone digging tunnel systems and living in them full time.

Ok, maybe he wasn't. Holy shit.

Wut?

Wut.

I got ya

Ham sandwich.

I see, I didnt get your reply above.

Of course I think its retarded to get a SAM system to protect myself.

Im just pointing out that if the reason the constitution allows citizens to "bear arms" they probably interpreted that as allowing people to mount a decent fight against their government, right?

If we really interpret that to mean "Mount a capable military force to challenge the nations standing army" then logic dictates we need to be similarly armed.

If you think that is retarded which most people do then why do we need weapons beyond self defense and hunting?

THe above poster proved my point.

I recall an argument against that revolving around the difference between arms and artillery, and that the original intention was for people to be able to own anything that infantry can carry. Bazookas would be ok by that definition, though nuclear missiles would be out of the question.

I'm not sure the writers of the constitution had the foresight to see what direction weapons would take in the future, though they did seem to have the foresight to give the constitution the ability to be adapted through amendments.

You know what kind of scares governments and makes totalitarianism difficult? A population with guns. You know what doesn't scare governments whatsoever and gives them the opportunity to do whatever they want with their citizens? A population that has literally no way to defend themselves.

I Would say the thing that scares them the most is a standing army made of citizens.

I mean if they really wanted to they could be breeding kids by the thousands in some hidden facility and raising them to be stone cold killers. I know that's some next level super paranoid conspiracy but if the government really wanted to they prob could, and if that happened and we didnt have guns then were fucked. Also besides that I'd say that guns are less of a defense in an actual government kicks down everyone's door scenario and more of a preventative to stop the government from being able to cross the line at all in how they handle our rights. Like for example if they tried to limit freedom of speech to a point that we become outraged, the simple threat of an armed militia could prevent the government from actually pushing that line in the first place, as the last thing they want is armed, unpeaceful riots.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

However, I do agree with your sentiments.

The second amendment exists to protect us from a tyrannical government, but when someone uses their second amendment right to do exactly that, the second amendment supporters get upset. "Protection from tyrannical government" very fairly means "shoot senators who you see as violating your rights". How is that acceptable, mainstream reasoning? It's psychotic.

What we consider our rights are on a different plane than regulation of those rights. Society changes. You can chip away then build back up as needed. Don't act like adjustments in law are out of the question.

Hahaha building back up your rights, that's optimistic. Sure it happens, but not anywhere near the rate that the chipping occurs.

Who do you plan to shoot with these guns?

I can't trust anyone who ends a gun who isn't a farmer or hunts. Because all you want it for is to kill another human being. That's fucked up.

Your constitution is old. Constitutions should be updated to reflect the times they're in. America isn't the wild West it once was. Get with the Times.

The whole point of the constitution is that it should be very difficult to change. We don’t want tyrants strolling on in and convincing a generation to “get with the times” and give up their rights.

I plan on shooting anyone who might try to do harm me or my family. I don’t want to, but plan on the possibility that one day that may include my own government. That’s the very point of the 2nd amendment.

Let me illuminate a few things for you. You’re right, many people in the Wild West carries guns. However, gun violence was very low (despite how many movies you’ve seen). You know why? Because people had a pretty good understanding that if they pulled a gun on someone they stood a pretty high risk of getting shot and killed themselves. Makes sense right? Now look at a city like Chicago. Most strict gun laws in the country. Would you assume that means low gun crime? You’d be wrong, it’s actually the worst because of the same logic. If I’m a criminal, I know I’ve got an advantage over a place where I can be pretty certain my victims aren’t going to be carrying a weapon. Now extend the same logic to the government.

Number of countries with a constitutional right to bear arms: 1 Number of countries with a constitutional right to free speech: 1

That’s not a coincidence.

Heard it all before man.

The way you Americans go on about free speech you'd swear the rest of the world was living in some Orwellian dystopia. They're not.

Let me illuminate some things for you. If you think owning a gun is going to stop the US government from kicking down your door and doing what they want then you're sorely mistaken. What are you going to do? Kill every federal officer yourself? Come on.

This weird fantasy of evil people or the government coming to get you and you being able to shoot your way out has got to do. It's delusional.

Constitutions are supposed to be hard to change. And it's good that they are. But that's not an argument against any specific change that should be made. Its the equivalent of saying "no. That's too hard to do so I won't do it!"

I feel sorry for you to be honest. You must live in so much fear. I've never felt the need to own a gun or any weapon and I'm thankful that most people around me don't have one. That's not the society I want to live in.

Total Individualism has failed. It has raised generations of nut bags who think they need an automatic rifle to be safe.

You're not alone. The world isn't out to get you. Put down the weapon and break bread. If everyone in america stopped looking out for number one all of the time it'd be a much nicer and safer place.

Let me tell you a little story.

There’s a heartbreaking tale about a Jewish man who lost his whole family to the holocaust. He was the lone survivor. He was one of the many who believes the Nazi’s would never escalate to the point they did and they went along trying to appease them step by step, including handing over their weapons. I know about this story because he made it his mission to spread it as widely as he could after he learned that another ghetto, who collectively decided to resist and not hand over their arms, held out against every resource the Germans had to extract them from their homes for over 4 months. Just that one ghetto. He lamented for the rest of his life what could have been avoided if all the Jews had the courage and foresight to do what that one ghetto had done.

You have no foresight and you’re mistaking your ignorance for virtue. And I’ve got news for you dood, free speech is in pretty short supply right now in some surprising places.

PS automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since the 70s.

Because all you want it for is to kill another human being

Law abiding citizens want guns in case they need to defend themselves from people who want to harm them. That's not fucked up, it's self defense. You say get with the times, but the fact is many people look at your country and feel that it is fucked up. An abundance of surveillance cameras, or detaining political activists for trying to interview a controversial figure do not fit in with American ideas on how to live. You know what's fucked up? That the mass exploitation of children in your country didn't spark people to act. I don't mind if someone keeps an inanimate object in case they need to defend themselves. Violence is a reasonable response to someone who intends to victimize you.

You say get with the times, and I say start living in reality.

Woah. Hold back on the assumptions there buddy. The UK is definitely moving towards a police state but I fail to see what that has to do with me or guns laws in america, since I'm neither British nor was I ever defending their government.

Both the US and the UK is fucked up for different reasons. I don't want to live in either.

I'm not going to convince you guns are unnecessary and you're never going to convince me that they are. I grew up in a country with minimal gun violence, extremely restricted access and well, guess what? I feel safe. I feel happy. I'm free to go where I please and say what I want and I'm not so insecure that I need to back it up with a tool for murder.

I could ask all other 4.5 million residents if they feel the same way and I'm pretty sure 99% would agree with me. The rest would be farmers and seasonal hunters. And I support their rights to have access to the firearms they require for those jobs. So long as they go through the proper channels and meet whatever criteria we have in place.

But keep going on with the whataboutism thats irrelevant to the whole thing.

Is my government perfect? Far from it. They're as corrupt as any other. But there's no agenda here to institute a police state and take away the freedoms of individuals. That's some weird post colonial fugue that America sadly never got over.

But whatever. If you want to live in a country where people are armed to the teeth and paranoid enough to think they need to carry around something that murders people to feel safe then that's your prerogative.

I think you're all fucking nuts though.

Woah. Hold back on the assumptions there buddy... since I'm neither British nor was I ever defending their government.

So you're what, Irish?

The UK is definitely moving towards a police state but I fail to see what that has to do with me or guns laws in america

It was assumption of mine based on your post history. I saw that you have posted in UK news threads and used the word 'bin'. But now I see that you are in fact Irish(little ironic you think the US needs to get with the times). It's not what it has to do with American gun laws, but what it has to do with people from other countries thinking that they know what will work in the US to reduce gun violence. Many people from other countries have their own major problems that they overlook or fail to consider. Where countries don't have as many problems you're almost always going to see a society that is better off in general. A lot of people don't realize that there are plenty of countries out there with stricter gun laws than the US with more gun crime. There are many variables that influence the rate of gun crime, that's just a fact. You cannot ignore those variables and pretend that gun control is the deciding factor, and that's not just my opinion but the opinion of several statisticians as well.

I'm not going to convince you guns are unnecessary and you're never going to convince me that they are.

You're making the assumption that I view them as a necessity when really I just support peoples right to own them, I don't own any guns myself. I view them as a tool that serves a purpose. I also view the proponents of gun control to be ignorant in a few ways, mostly that they are ignorant about crime and gun statistics, and that when proposing gun control as a solution they make the mistake of using a univariate analysis based on gun control alone rather than a more accurate analysis that takes into consideration the many variables that influence gun crime. I also think that many people are ignorant of the many violations the US and other countries have committed against their citizens, which is the entire purpose for the second amendment in the first place.

But keep going on with the whataboutism thats irrelevant to the whole thing.

It's not irrelevant, you live in a different country, you are ignorant of what it is like to live here, and you are ignorant of the realities people in this country face. Case in point:

But whatever. If you want to live in a country where people are armed to the teeth and paranoid enough to think they need to carry around something that murders people to feel safe then that's your prerogative.

Go do a comparison between crime in Ireland and crime in the US. The US has much more crime per capita in many different categories across the board. You call it paranoia, I say you are ignorant of the realities that many Americans face. People live in crime ridden areas, and they want the option to defend themselves. Some people live in areas where crime is less prevalent but still there is a possibility they could become victims of crime and so they wish to have the ability to defend themselves too. That's without considering the actual purpose of the second amendment.

Another thing:

something that murders people

Firearms are inanimate objects. Maybe in Ireland tree sprites come out of the woods and possess things, but in America we don't believe that kind of nonsense(joking). Sick people kill others, not inanimate objects. You can argue that if there were no guns people wouldn't get shot, but you try working out the logistics of confiscating over 300 million guns while trying to prevent black markets from rising up at the same time. Could gun control help? Possibly but I and many others are opposed to ceding any ground to idiots who think the solution is a stream of endless regulation while continuing to neglect that gun murders have been trending down for some time, and that most gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns.

I think you're all fucking nuts though.

And I think you as an individual are uninformed and have not really thought this issue through.

Lol you just said guns murder people. I better destroy all the forks spoons and knives in my house for making my family fat. Your logic is wack my friend. People use tools to kill people, tools don’t kill people.

Ah that ole argument. Guns are a tool for murder. That is what they are made for.

Spoons knives and forks have very different purposes. One could kill a man with their hands too. Are we to ban hands?

Your argument is as absurd as you think mine is.

Whatever though. I won't have to worry about my kids getting shot when they go to school. I won't have to worry about my kids potentially having access to extremely dangerous tools that require training for proper handling. Good luck with that.

You'll be standing atop a rock, guns in the air screaming about your rights until everyone around you is dead. It probably won't even sink in then.

No other developed nation has this problem. But at least you can post inflammatory dangerous things on the Internet without the government fining you. God bless America!

Guns are made to shoot. The vast majority will never be pointed at another person. It's about personal responsibility and self defense. You can't depend on anyone else to defend you from an attacker. And what do you care what I own if you never see it, hear it, or even know it's there?

Yawn. Gun violence in the US vastly outweighs that anywhere else in the world.

Thousands of innocent people being killed every year by nut bags, police and by accident. A good price to pay for "personal responsibility" am I right?

And what do you care what I own if you never see it, hear it, or even know it's there?

Beacuse you're irrespoonsible, you can't be truted to maintain those standards, like this jackass: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/us/gun-activist-shot-florida/index.html

Millions of guns and gun owners; 33000ish total deaths from firearms per year. Send like plenty of that going on. But hey, just call me, personally, irresponsible.

Who are you to tell anyone what they can or can't have?

Do you or did you ever have the right to own an m1 Abrams tank? How about a bazooka?

What? I run in very gunny circles, range every weekend, 3 gun, Appleseed, and this sentiment is not what I'm hearing at all.

Well, most high schoolers are literally too young to have the right to purchase firearms. They have to avoid getting shot at school for a few more years before they will have that right.

Because the odds of being shot in school are so high right? Lol

The reason you have less and less high-school graduates is because they are getting shot in huge numbers! /s

If I'm not mistaken, that's the number one reason kids today don't graduate, just behind Tide Pod intoxication.

It is likely that any female protesting when she turns 18 will be in a situation for 3 years after turning 18 where her "demands" for the age to be moved to 21 (her right to self defense she's asking be removed) could then result in her losing her life. The odds of her being the victim of a violent run of the mill crime far outweigh the extremely astronomical odds of being shot at school.

You think it's "likely" that an 18 year old woman will "lose her life" in America because she does not have a gun? Do we live in the same America? I know which sub I'm in, but this comment is divorced from reality.

The odds of being shot in school is 1 in 654 million

Most folks are wanting citizens to have zero guns at all. Even those who don't necessarily want that are helping the process. People fail to realize we have our rights chipped away little by little until they're completely gone. More regulation passes. People still get killed. More laws for banning weapons are put in place. People still get killed. Eventually the last step is to take away guns from everyone. Guess what? People will still get killed.

Most folks are wanting citizens to have zero guns at all.

That is not true.

I've seen enough interviews with people under the age of 25 who are 100% advocating, "Nobody needs to have a gun." "Guns are made to kill people." "We dont need guns."

I don't think it's just the NRA. I think it's all a ploy for the disarmament of the american populace. Either way. The United States is fucked.

So you think the people under the age of 25 are trying to disarm the american populace?

I don't care about random interviews and twitter comments. You can find people that believe they themselves are the reincarnation of christ, that's all background noise. There is no movement in either major political party to confiscate guns.

I'm saying the Youth of America is pushing to disarm themselves and everyone else. Eventually some of those youths will be the ones in leadership positions. So yeah, we're fucked.

Nobody wants to take our guns. Except all these people I guess...

Who the fuck cares what Rosie O'Donnell thinks? You can also find crazy extremist people that think all sex is rape. Are you worried that they are going to be able to outlaw that? It still remains that there is no legitimate political party that is even proposing to confiscate guns and amend the constitution to overturn the second amendment.

What is also true is that whenever people get scared that guns are going to be confiscated, gun sales go up.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889886,00.html

But muh conspiracy spinnnn

In a conspiracy sub, how dare they!

Welcome to the future

They already lack the right to not attend school - and it's the public schools that induce the psychosis of mass murderers.

They are attacking a symptom (guns) rather than the root cause (public schools, which induce shame through grading and incompetent teachers, inferiority complex through age-segregated competition, and sex-ed induced cuckolding by the alpha males). But who can do root cause analysis these days? Analysis and causality are forbidden in said public schools.

i don't think it's unreasonable to be a victim of a school shooting (or have friends who went through it etc) and advocate for stricter gun controls. yes, even if it's depriving them (and others) of gun rights.

idk if it's the most effective way to curtail gun violence, but it completely makes sense to me.

I get what you're saying. I just don't understand who people think should be responsible for their protection if law enforcement consistently fails.

valid viewpoint. some would say it's not an issue about law enforcement though. if somebody wanted to commit a mass killing right now, it's very easy for them to, and if it gets to the point where law enforcement is called its usually too late. even a response time of a couple min can be deadly.

so it's like.. how do we stop a mass killing? an in progress one, more guns by trusted ppl to subdue the assailant is one way. another is better screening/mental care. Maybe another is decreased access to high capacity magazines and long rifles.

I think all of these options make logical sense, but they all have huge confounding issues. better mental care is always said, but our healthcare is already so damn expensive and inefficient. guns in teachers hands sounds reasonable to some, but can we really advocate for increased funds for that when teachers already make shit pay (leasing to many apathetic, unqualified teachers), our scores compared to other countries is terrible, and attrition is super high?

It's a huge complex issue and somebody that postulates they know the solution is full of shit.

I would argue that there's next to no way of stopping all mass killings. The only way to limit them, outside of becoming a total police state, is to make sure potential warning signs are followed up on. Ensuring that all applicable data is added to the NICS and allowing a process for citizens to challenge said data if there's a possibility of it being faulty is absolutely necessary. That includes any potential "firearms restraining order" laws that may be passed.

As for"arming" teachers; simply getting rid on gun free zones and allowing faculty that already have CCW permits to carry if they choose makes done sense to me.

As for"arming" teachers; simply getting rid on gun free zones and allowing faculty that already have CCW permits to carry if they choose makes done sense to me.

Didn't a couple of firearms instructors accidentally discharge their weapons in schools today? One kid got hit in the next by shrapnel.

The "good guy with a gun" is a myth, right?

Well who protects us if we can't rely on the police or trained experts?

What's their average response time? Didn't the officer at the school during the Florida shooting flee the scene and instead of responding? Isn't it the citizens right to protect and defend themselves and others? I'm not saying the whole "arm every teacher" statement but people should be allowed to carry wherever they desire and accept the results of it however negative, or positive they be...

Thank you. That's my point.

Yup yup. Police are reactionary...show up after the crime has been committed...purpose is to enforce the laws, not prevent crime...it's a fallacy to think they or anyone can.

I think the question should be, what do we need protection from? The solution to "mentally disturbed kids shooting up a school" may not be "someone needs to shoot them before they shoot someone else".

Maybe the solution is increased education funding (get kids to focus on their future) and providing comprehensive social support and healthcare (for counseling and psychological treatment).

I agree. Protection is needed when someone breaks into your home, or tries to carjack you, or tries to assault you, etc. The focusing on guns when it comes to school shootings is missing a huge issue, the why. The Sandy Hook killer didn't legally purchase a gun after all. He killed his mom and took hers.

At least one of whom was a police officer. Guns are a dangerous but necessary evil. Gun bans are a more dangerous evil.

I somehow think the solution to gun violence isn't more guns. I really believe we need a social solution to what seems to be a social problem.

You are perfectly correct. Neither bans noe their repeals affect violence or gun violence. It is a social problem that can only be solved socially.

That said, Marx wrote that communism requires an armed populace in order to succeed. Additionally, no authoritarian bloodbath can be executed on an armed population. The pro-gun side is the correct side, then the issue of gun violence must be solved by solving the social issues at the root.

if law enforcement consistently fails.

Arm the kids.

I believe it is possible to work, but gun violence can be more effectively stopped by improving mental health care. If people didn't have the mental issues causing them to want to shoot people, the problem wouldn't exist. Plus, it's going to be a general benefit to have better mental health. Just my two cents no one asked for though.

Why care more about them if they couldn't care less about me?

People need self control not gun control.

The shooter had over 30 police reports filed against him and the FBI was fully aware that he could have potentially shot up a school and they did nothing.

The police at the school did nothing. The parents did nothing. He was bullied, he had no friends and he needed help.

More laws won't fix this since killing people is already illegal.

I see this as a poorly disguised gun grab.

They want the police to use their guns to take everyone else's guns.

Strict gun control is ineffective. They will either have to take away ALL guns (criminals will find a way to obtain some) or actually back the laws they already have on the books.

For instance, there have been multiple incidents where domestic violence abusers retained their guns or obtained new ones even though their convictions or orders of protection were supposed to prevent them from having guns.

It's a law on the books, federal and usually state. Does the federal government or the states put teeth behind those laws and charge and convict those abusers who violate those laws? Almost never. Should they? Of course. It's an easy law to follow. Either they were in possession of guns or not. If they are, then they should be charged and convicted.

Point being- CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND NOT "LAW ABIDERS".

So when you take away guns from law abiding people, you leave them defenseless against criminals who will use guns despite the laws against them.

Strict security would help dissuade people from trying to mass murder. There's no point in trying to shoot up a place if the fast defense response is going to ruin their master plan of devastation before it barely gets started.

Better access to mental healthcare would help dissuade people from trying to mass murder. We are making strides, but we have ways to go.

Better proactive responses to problem situations would help dissuade people from trying to mass murder (30+ calls to law enforcement for the FL shooter and warning tips to the FBI were freaking neon signs).

The two dead cops in Columbus in February are a great example. Convicted felon with a history of domestic violence calls obtained a handgun through a straw purchase (his idiot friend) and then killed two police officers who responded to the call. All the restrictions in the world didn’t stop it.

The indoctrination worked wonders on you.

Yes, because the MSM usually shits all over young people protesting on any subject. This is artificial and promoted.

Remember how the corporate media covered Occupy Wallstreet? The pipeline protests at Standing Rock? The Bernie Sanders supporters protesting the 2016 Democratic National Convention by the thousands?

Oh, that's right, they fucking DIDN'T COVER that shit at all.

I hate the word "oligarchs" because I think it turns some people off automatically for some reason-- but why can't people see that very powerful people (oligarchs) shape public opinion by manipulating our information. Only 6 major corporations own the media. Only a few decades ago that number was much higher, propaganda was illegal, the fairness doctrine was in place. This world has gone completely off the deep end.

Brainwashing the next generation

I guess if thats what you want to believe. My school walked out to remember those who died in Parkland. I don’t believe in taking away anyone’s right to own a gun, but that right shouldn’t be more important than a minor’s right to live. But, we need to address this problem with an open mind and see that this is an issue of loose gun laws and mental illnesses. Yes Nikolas Cruz could have killed with a knife, but it is a lot harder to effectively kill a large amount of people with say a knife or a bat before getting tackled and overpowered by other people. At the end of the day, weapons are weapons, it’s just some are more effective at killing than others, which is why those that are the most efficient should be harder to obtain.

Once again, time to remind everyone that banning 1 specific type of weapon does not equal "taking my guns" or "being stripped of my rights".

This argument is nothing more than slippery slope fallacy.

Also, a few people with pea shooters aren't going to accomplish anything against a government with tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, drones, fight jets, missiles, chemical weapons....and the list goes on.

Heck....even for those people that we know the government killed....how many even saw their attacker? They can hack your car, poison your food, arrange an "accident", crash your plane....so many ways they can kill you, and having a gun won't matter for any of them.

I saw a comment the other day that fits in perfectly here...a bunch of goat herders with ak's have kept their government and ours a bay for quite a while now... Sure there are multiple factors that play into those scenarios but at least meeting force with force keeps the opposition on their toes and guessing...

Except for the fact that the war on terror is completely manufactured to create a boogey man for American sheep to be afraid of.

Eh, the pretense of "war on terror" is manufactured...there is still terror even if fake, domesticated or even false promoted by MSM to have you cower and cover every time the "level" goes from yellow to orange, but regardless, a persons fear is still real to them. People throughout the world that have been armed pose a threat to those who would try to oppress them, and that goes for both foreign and domestic.

.a bunch of goat herders with ak's have kept their government and ours a bay for quite a while now...

For a bunch of reasons, one of which is fucked up rules of engagement. If the gov went full totalitarian they wouldnt abide by the same rules we see in Afghanistan.

It would be more like Vietnam, large scale bombing and use of incendiary and chemical weapons.

I can tell you right now that Steve in accounting is not going underground and living in a hole in the ground for several years. Steve didnt grow up under brutal conditions and started fighting in a war at 14. Steve has a hard time hiking and camping for more than a few days. Steve has never had to ruck 50 miles with a 100 lb pack. Steve is a fatass who like shooting guns, Steve will never fight against the government because then he wouldnt have access to cable TV.

Americans are not the same breed of person as a afghani goat herder or a Vietcong. Thats a good thing, not a detriment to us.

THe reality is 99% of the population is too apathetic and ill trained to do anything but protest.

The other 1% will be tagged by drones flying too high for an AR15 to hit

You know we're not living in the same world as the authors of our constitution, right?

Things change.

You're right, things do change. What would you like to see changed in the Constitution to reflect current times?

Exactly. The founders could have never envisioned printing presses capable of churning out thousands of tabloids a minute. They never could have envisioned unrestricted and unregulated mass spreading of information from uneducated, unlicensed, and non-property-owning people claiming to be "journalists" through the Internet. We need common sense speech reform.

I support the First Amendment. Look, I grew up around newspapers. Reading is a part of my traditions and heritage as much as any of you. But the Founders never could have dreamed of the ability to rapidly spread dangerous and inaccurate ideas! The First applies to manual block printing presses, not fully automated machine presses that churn out thousands of copies per minute! Fake news is destroying lives and the internet is fueling the deaths of thousands across the country due to hate speech. We need to do something.

That's why I'm proposing common sense speech regulation. Nobody needs more than 20 mB of data per month to send messages to friends or do business! The government needs to require strict license programs for anyone who wants to be a journalist. Finally, we need background checks for anyone who wants to make a newspaper, commentary show, or blog.

After all, it's for the children!

It is "common sense", thinking anything else would make you different. No one wants to be different, we all want to fit in with the group. Upvote for you!

/r/im14andthisisdeep

How is it a false equivalence? It's literally the exact same argument, copy and paste.

Is a newspaper a lethal weapon? Not in some figurative sense where words have power but in the sense that you can pick one up and use it to end someone else's life instantly?

No. I was a dummy back in high school too. Some would say I'm still a dummy now. I know future me says so.

hmmm. schools are already designed like prisons.

we all know that metal detectors are going to be everywhere after vegas.

schools in rough areas already use them.

i say buy stock in metal detectors asap.

Sure, but that's kind of defeatist logic, isn't it? It's like saying "Well, we'll never stop the military industrial complex, so maybe I should try to also profit from war profiteering too."

Those benefiting from the MIC would see it as empowering!

Anything for an insta story society

Amazing? Perhaps you do not realize it but this youth are a direct threat to you and your families safety,prosperity,and future both mentally,physically,and spiritually. I would say dangerous - not amazing. 60% of millennials actually want socialism. Socialism,Leads to Marxism,and then to Communism. The straigh transition from capitalist to communist doesn't work. You have to soft kill the patient. These younger generations do not want to work and hate capitalism. These are the ones that got trophies for doing squat and who were never told 'NO",and never held responsible for their own actions. Free everything sounds great but too stupid to realize what happens when the people who are pushing the wheelbarrow get sick of it and dump those riding in it out? This has been a 3 to 4 generation slow frog in boiling water agenda at play. They have been brainwashing kids to be brownshirt fascists all through the 3 stages of "education", more like indoctrination. All that time waiting for the older smarter generations to die off. Then it's only a matter of time before the numbers start to even out and those mislead start to outnumber the ones that understand how communism ends. This is why True History has been replaced with the false song of globalism in schools. Now in their defense these younger generations (not all all ignorant,gullible,lazy and naive) are bombarded by teachers,movies,music,fake news,etc to get their daily does of everything anti-American poisoning. It becomes so saturated that eventually many fall into it. Repeat a lie enough and it becomes true. Saul Alinsky's Rules of Radicals 101. The flip side to that is there are a ton that are too far gone and cannot be reached and that is where it becomes dangerous - NOT amazing.

Oh Jesus fuck....it’s the “*these damn millenials with their bippin n the boppin, hippin n the hoppin, they dunno what the jazz is all about! Yeehaw n boy howdy let’s show these socialist snowflake fags what the smarter hard-working America is all about!” guy.

MLK was a strong proponent of gun rights. If he didn't have a literal arsenal to defend himself, he might have been assassinated even sooner.

Even Karl Marx has said that we should never give up our fire arms. "The workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

The people who need to be disarmed are the military who murders innocents abroad. Decent citizens owning fire arms are not the cause of gun violence in this world. I'd even say that we should disarm the police like the UK has before we forcibly take away decent citizens' Constitutional rights.

You are a voice crying in a wilderness, but some hear you. Congrats on actually reading Marx unlike so many.

If he didn't have a literal arsenal to defend himself, he might have been assassinated even sooner.

I want you to read that again and think about what you've done.

The only thing that's mind boggling is that social engineering can manipulate entire swathes of populations to act against their self interests, the interests of their loved ones, and the interests of their home for little or no return.

I mean we hear them described as useful idiots all the time. Generally we ascribe these characteristics to the marxists/leftists, but it's also broader and more complete than that.

You gotta understand, however, that this country has been at war since 9/11. We have a fresh generation of young adults attending college, driving, starting families and beginning to raise the new generation who have never lived in a country where they knew any freedom as children, were not at war, were not completely coddled by nanny state measures and sensibilities. They have no notions of these things you value to the extent you would die for.

The problem is everyone is terrified. They're terrified of being scathed. They're terrified of independence, freedom and self determination. They're so concerned with what others have that they might not have that they fail to recognize what they do have.

People need to lose their fear of being scathed. People are pussies. People are stupid. People are terrified.

Haha. Liberal destruction? You poor deluded old bastard. Fuck off.

Liberals are scum. Sorry to break it to you but it has been known for 200 years.

It will require a strong rubber banding of conservative ideals/values.

Aside from the idealism you spout most of it is just wrong. Its nice that you aspire to these ideals but conservatism wont help here and you havent made an argument that it will.

Liberal states outperform conservative states in almost every regard. Health education productivity the list goes on.

You have a republican supermajority about to enforce more gun laws than a Dem minority. Why not address that? Your head conservative has had 3 wives and cheated on at least one with a porn star, why is conservatism not saving him>

I'm not talking about politics.

So what are you talking about?

Conservatives cheat on their wives and remove your second amendment rights.

conservative social values. Like get back to the days where being aids free wasn't a badge of honor, where being in heterosexual relationships is okay, people own guns, the nuclear family is important, men aren't spineless, lispy, blubbering douchebags and woman aren't rampaging whores living with drug addicted 40 year old kids and cats.

Strawman

Who do you know that think having aids is a badge of honor? I have never met one... Who do you know that shits on hetero relationships? Ive never met one.

You are inventing a boogey man that doesnt exist.

I think you need new friends if those are the type of people you hang out with.

california.

Thats retarded.

So should I go to states with retarded conservative laws and prop them up as strawmen to knock down?

I don't care what you do.

I figured you dont care about having a truthful conversation.

I dont know why you hang out with enough trannies or lispy homosexuals.

Maybe you need new friends?

K. Maybe. I think you're onto something.

You might need to get off the internet for a while. Walk around, get some fresh air, and maybe you'll see that most people aren't the exaggerated, 1-dimensional memes you think they are.

I think they're worse.

Sounds like a miserable way to go through life. Good luck with that.

You say miserable. I say honest. You act like anyone cares about your opinion. Thanks for the well wishes. They're really important to me.

Our walkout wasn't about guns at all. We did it in memory of the victims. Walkout, 1 minute for each, and then back to class.

Well unfortunately they’re using your walkout in remembrance of victims for their gun ban agenda

Then why not gather in the auditorium for a moment of silence? Instead you leave class and prop along the road to gather attention to yourselves.

It was a private walkout, there was no media there.

That's not how any media source is reporting it

Then why not gather in the auditorium for a moment of silence? Instead you leave class and prop along the road to gather attention to yourselves.

We didn't leave class. This was during homeroom. And there was no attention, this was in a private school yard.

I was just generalizing based on what the schools in my town did.

So we just going to have students walk out of class for every shooting in for the victims now?

This wasn't during class, and this was the only time we have ever done this. We probably won't be doing it ever again.

all the kids at my school are crazy anti gun brainwashed

My school is very pro gun.

it varies from place to place, person to person

Let’s start with the 40+ calls to police and 2 tips to the FBI that went ignored.....or let’s just willingly give up our guns and our free speech and our genders so no one gets offended

No confidence in law enforcement and they want law abiding citizens to give up their guns.

I only even own guns because in the twilight of Obamas presidency people were openly hostile to whites.

Haven't you heard? The racial tension started with Trump, not Obama.

Isn't this the fucking truth though? All I remember about his election was how he would bring forth a new America free from racial prejudice and all that has happened after his 2 terms was everyone being more divided. I'm not even sure where the blame lies, I think Obama has something to do with it but I'm sure there are outside forces at play. To add to it, 3rd wave feminism rising in the middle of his term and reaching it's full popularity just about the time of Hillary's candidacy seem entirely orchestrated. They used the intersectional angle to group all "marginalized groups" with a heavier focus on women (half the population) to promote having a female candidate. Well that shit didn't work because they didn't anticipate a growth of rational people from both sides of the isle going out of their way to call them out [quick aside, the one thing that seems to bring all sides together is intolerance for bullshit]. Now that Trump has won, as you out it, the twilight period is in effect and now there are still hardcore elements out there that are very motivated by manufactured racism.

Isn't that part of what they were marching against?

I mean there were warnings about this dude, but he could still buy a gun. The shooter in Texas should have been banned but nobody bothered to actually put him on the list.

I mean, you have a valid point about warning signs. But blocking people who exhibit red flags is quite literally gun control, and any attempt to block people like that from going to a gunshow and purchasing a gun without a background check is shouted down by people who for some reason think it's unreasonable.

Because once a law like that is in place it becomes too easy for someone to say “this person shows a threat of becoming dangerous. Ban them from gun list.” I know blah blah slippery slope fallacy but it puts too much power in the hands of the decider of who goes on the list imo.

Tell that to Trump - he said take the guns first, and figure it out in court later.

I get what you're saying, but by that logic, there's nothing you can do about the shooter in Texas or MSD.

Okay, that might have stopped this shooting. But what about the other couple hundred?

Let’s look at the common threads.....almost all of these shooters were on anti depressants yet I hear no calls for banning psychotropic meds....almost all of these shooters were bullied and yet I see bullying videos continuously every day....why should I, a law abiding citizen, need to give up my rights because no one wants to stand up for bullies or against big pharma? The same people calling for gun control are the ones saying cops shoot innocent people and yet they want only the “corrupt” police to be armed?? I’ll tell you what, if there was an active shooter anywhere near me they’d be dead before they could kill anyone....so until the root causes (mental health issues) of these shootings are addressed we need armed citizens now more than ever...

2nd ammendment:

"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."

"Well regulated" are the key words here. This ammendment is vague at best. Who is regulating these so called "militias"? Serious question. This ammendment says nothing about all citizens to have weapons. Are all gun holders in a regulated militia that I am not aware of?

I’d assume that’s what led to local “law enforcement”... you know. The law of the land.

States are sovereign. At least - they have their own constitutions.

Which is why this whole social rights arguments are so dumb to me. The country was founded off of the idea that if you didn’t like certain ideas - there’s a good chance some other area in the country did.

And we stuck together as a nation because we understood how important it was to protect a country where everyone understood and respected the idea to not force ideas onto each other.

Now not so much. Now - ideas from one state have to be FORCED onto another. Look. Cali - you don’t like guns? Don’t have them. If you live and Cali and don’t agree? Move to a state you agree with. Pretty straight forward.

Why has our country gotten so dumb. . •_•rhetorical.

Which people does "We The People" refer to? Those people have an explicitly protected right to own firearms to protect themselves.

They can choose not to exercise it, of course. But they have the right.

Everyone else has the same right, but mist don't live under progressive enough governments that recognize such a right. Except the Swiss and the Czechs.

The People are regulated by the People (or that is how it is supposed to work). If the People decide to make changes to gun laws through legal legislation, then constitutional rights are not being taken away. The 2nd Ammendment is just that, an Ammendment to the original constitution, and it too can be ammended if the People see so fit. Regulated is the key word here, still.

The 2nd Amendment could be outright repealed and still my right of self defense would be completely unaffected.

*The 2nd Amendment does not grant any right. *

They are way to deep now, there is no going back... it's too late now and it's one way trip until the end. The indoctrination level might be at all time high so no surprise here... they will fall just like Rome but the only question is will they go out with a whimper and simply be forgotten or go out with a bang and ruin most things for everyone and be left like a wounded beast ready to be taken apart by 2-3 strongest players on this world stage. Its like this spiral loop has been going on for a very long time... by design :/

The clips on the news of students protesting were organized by adults. This is a psyop.

Of course it is. Fascism in action.

We're suprised public schools brainwash students, why?

ITT: the exact same comment worded differently upvoted to the top, any dissenting opinion downvoted.

Gotta love this sub

High school walkouts are always so creepy to me. No one is fooled into believing that 16 somethings have such relevant options on matters that they must take to civil disobedience. It's always some group using the kids as messaging.

The kids always love it cause free day, of course. I guess I just don't really care what high school kids think. Sure, you're smart, but you have no wisdom backing it up.

What makes you think teenagers can't be political? I was a debating kid in high school, and I followed political news super closely. My friends and I talked about news issues all the time. I remember people at my school writing very political articles for our school news paper. Maybe we weren't as wise as adults, but we weren't total idiots. We had issues that mattered to us and we did what we could about it.

What other mechanisms to effect change, or to even be heard, are available to 16 year olds? They can't vote. Walkouts and protests are one of the very few ways they have to express their opinions on these issues that have great impact on their daily lives.

Well, for one, the internet. I hear that's a good forum for spreading info.

For spreading info? Sure. For direct action? Not so much. It's easy to ignore words on a screen, much harder to ignore the entire school getting up and walking out.

Is really not though. You walk out you miss your tests or face your disciplinary action or whatever you face when missing a day of school. You're there to prepare for your career not make political statements.

Regardless, without fail, the majority who walkout do so because their friends are doing it, their parents are saying they should, or they just want a free day. Very few are actually protesting anything, which is why I find it a poor means of civil change.

Also, no offense but a teenagers opinion on the world is, frankly, naive. Go provide for a family pay a mortgage, navigate the wilds of the workforce THEN have your protests.

That's exactly three paragraphs more than I honestly care about the subject to be honest.

So, why did you bother then? I'm sorry your adolescence was so disempowering you feel you can project that to all American teenagers today!

Your retort would have been better without the baseless personal attack.

I am completely baffled by what you have interpreted as a personal attack.

Your whole second sentence. You take it out and your comment has more weight. Leaving it in is a petty attempt at insulting me based on your assumption of my past.

You'll learn these things with age and wisdom. (see how that works?)

Yeah, nah. I'm old as dirt! It sincerely wasn't meant to be an attack, but sympathy. I'm sorry you felt that way.

At 49 years old you didn't go to school with weekly stories of kids your age being shot in the face with military type weapons sold legally to clinically insane people. You didn't have the FBI and other federal agencies drop the ball regularly and allow these psycho's access to high cap mags and the ability to walk straight into school and start massacring your best friends. You grew up in a different time, and you have no way of understanding what these kids are going through in their daily lives. What I find more "mind boggling" is that teenagers today can organize a NATIONWIDE protest at 18 years old or younger. Pretty fucking clever. That shit was never done in the 80s or 90s. The times they are a changing. These kids vote in 2020. And you're going to see a whole generation of kids that want safety over their uncle's hobby on the weekends.

The kids are not organizing this. Don't fucking kid yourself.

As for getting shot, they are at far greater risk of dying when they climb in a car.

The number of people shot by home intruders per year is 200. Yet gun owners claim they "need" 8 guns to protect their home.

It's only 200 because so many people have 8 guns to protect themselves.

Australia, Japan and the Uk disagree.

If we made were as culturally and racially homogenous as them, we would have a lower crime rate.

What’s funny - and I’ve yet to see this pointed out - is that liberals are afraid of trump because he is supposedly “crazy and going to put people in camps”

essentially worried that he will make a tyrannical government...

but they are protesting the very right that would protect them from the person they are so afraid of.

Kind of shows how dumb they really are. Haha

So over dramatic.... They're not begging to lose their rights. Some young people just want sensiblengun policies. Why should siding with the government be wrong? Your generation caused a majority the problems that the younger one is dealing with and this sort of attitude is a contribution factor.

Read more history, your ignorance is showing.

See a psychiatrist.. your delusions are showing

It's not about taking your rights away, nobody is taking guns. Making them harder to get? Yes, definitely. It should be more difficult to get a gun than a driver's license, and that's not so... We need a 'hunters education' course type of system.

Indoctrination.

How else do you get people to believe to towers collapsed upon themselves from burning jet fuel? That “mentally unstable” radicalized youth can carry out massacres with military level precision. That nearly every war fought has been justified and necessary. Lies on top of manipulation on top of more lies on top of more manipulation. They need to control the narrative so the same five corporations buy up all the MSM media outlets putting out the same message over and over. They keep you distracted, entertained and consuming on 24 hour basis. Your own mind is their greatest weapon but also their biggest fear.

This is the world we live in.

this is what happens when you spend 30 years letting the government strip funding and focus on indoctrination.

Joe Rogan once tweeted about how our country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. He's not inaccurate, but I believe we have three separately identifiable problems that unfortunately evolved together to form a huge clusterfuck of a problem today. We have a rising mental health problem that still gets a stigma that it's a choice rather than a disease; an evil multi-billion dollar collaboration between lawmakers, healthcare professionals, and pharmaceutical companies that are largely uninterested in other sustainable treatment methods due to higher financial profits from constantly pumping the public with pills full of serious long-term psychological side effects; and finally we have a firearm ownership issue that is a little more complicated than the first two problems mainly due to the possibility of losing a constitutional right held by doubtful citizens who are understandably cautious of being disarmed by an untrustworthy government that has on their easiest disposal, the best military-grade equipment and heavily armed military personnel the world has ever seen.

We like to take a look back at history to help us solve current issues, but this are three unprecedented problems that we humans have never seen before. Finding the solution won't be easy, nor would it be quick. Things will probably get worse before it gets better. But publicly open discussions need to be started so we can start putting pieces together for a realistic solution that the majority can agree with. I don't have kids but we owe it to the younger generation to leave this place better than we found it. Right now it's a fucking mess. No ground-breaking innovations with cellphones, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, or any scientific technology can possibly make up for an increasing likelihood that in the future there is a good chance your kid might not get home that day. That's a very grim reality that we should all be losing sleeping from.

Here is a website that shows a slowly increasing number of mass shootings and children (age 0-17) harmed or killed by gun violence.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Americans lol

Haven't you guys already had most of your rights stripped away anyway??

No there is some evil ass parents out there.

What is your proposal for stopping the school shootings happening?

If I recall correctly Ron Paul predicted this. It's a repeat of history. Soon we'll have another socialist party rise and the left will push in a man who will be exactly like Hitler the stage is set for it. Even if Trump gets re-elected they will bide their time till after he is gone to put that individual in place. That individual will burn the Constitution on the front steps of the White House.

If the US doesn't end up in civil war it is a guarantee at least 100 million Americans will die. Those who do not want to obey a socialist radical system will be killed for not supporting it just like how Adolf killed everyone who didn't support his socialist paradise.

You conquer a nation by separating people and dividing them by class and race. Which has been very well done by the Democratic President the last 8 years. He has made white people demonetized to the point white people on MSM and to some people are no longer deemed human and that true "equality" and "diversity" is a world without whites.

The world has been separated by class this is how socialism comes in. When you get people to believe all the rich men are evil and against you and they should be taxed that is in itself a rich man trick. The rich will become politicians and bureaucrats and there will be no "greed" they will control the money and you will get what they chose to give you.

True, real democracy and capitalism is a threat to the wealthy for the fact it generates wealth and wealth can be spread. Socialism guarantees wealth is controlled by the government and those in power it is a great thing for the 1% for socialism to take over because they can control everything in the background and all the money. They will always remain rich and you will always remain poor socialism is always the end game.

The world will end when the US falls to socialism. Many sensible leaders know this, even though I heavily disagree with Communism, Putin understands history and Russia hates socialism, there is a video I recall Putin talking about how the US must always remain a true democracy for the balance of the world and if it was to fall to Socialism he would rather wipe out the US than let it fall to socialism like Germany. Putin's friend who served in the Kremlin mention if the US wanted war with Russia it would have to fall to Socialism and Russia understands very well you never trust a Socialist, Russia made the mistake of trusting Adolf they would never trust or allow another massive socialist state to exist.

About as boggling to see the uneducated let the gun, weapons, pharma or whatever big cash interest take their rights away again and again and again in that stupid country.

This is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on Reddit. Please tell me this is a satire

I think Americans need to stop going nuts over a bit of paper written hundreds of years ago. Was it possible for a teenager to get a rifle that can kills hundreds of people in a matter of minutes when it was written? Fuck no.

The level of brainwashing in the US is quite a spectacle to witness from the outside.

Downvote away, you know it's true.

I sort of see it as they are protesting for the right not to get killed

I get it. It’s a genuine fear nowadays..shit I remember sitting in high school and college lectures day-dreaming about what I’d do if somebody walked in with an assault rifle and just started mowing us down for no reason. I get it. I empathize with them. It’s fucked up and nobody should have to feel that way, especially in a school.

I understand but you can't confiscate all weapons across the country fast enough to stop the next mass shooting.Security is the answer

I don’t think all weapons is the goal. That’s certainly not possible. However, i think the goal is to eliminate all unnecessary weapons that are more likely to produce a high body count. Idc if a mass shooting was done with a glock, the point is an AR-15 or something similar produces a greater chance to produce a higher body count. And if everyone who is against banning assault rifles explains that we need them to fight the government, I’ll just say: “Well...you were just explaining how the entire VT shooting was committed with just handguns...won’t those do the same damage against the government if that’s what you’re claiming?”

It's a bit surreal. That wasn't a valid concern when I was in school. The dramatization of such a thing in The Basketball Diaries seemed odd.

If we didn't currently live in a police state we could have serious conversations about it. We have a corrupt justice system, we have a very greedy and powerful NRA who exploits the peoples mistrust in the government to spend loads of cash on talking points, making any conversation as a means to outright ban all guns.

Maybe they’re tired of getting shot?

you have witnessed the consequences of that law and still support it?

The young and dumb are being tricked by the rich politicians!?!? My word! I have never heard of such a thing!

In all seriousness, look up how Mao took over China. That is just about exactly what is happening right now.

no.sadly no.

Out of interest why do you believe you have the right to own a gun?

And I don't mean because some people from hundreds of years ago said so. I mean in a modern context. Why should you have the right to own a gun if it puts those around you in danger?

Same argument can be said for knives, gasoline and trucks and anything else. They all put people at risk if used improperly. The gun didn't decide to shoot people a fucking maniac did.

Hypothetically, if all guns are banned and required to be turned into the authorities, do you believe the police should still be armed while working?

I live in England and no one has guns here. Apart from farmers. So it's an issue I'm detached from, but likewise, I see what a society is like without guns, and I can say conclusively that it is safer for children and members of the public in general. If I walked down the street knowing people around me were armed it would give me great anxiety.

Knives, gasoline and trucks all serve a purpose. You could make that argument with anything. I could use a tampon as a weapon if I really wanted to. The point is guns are specifically engineered people killers. Nobody has massacred innocent school children with knives or trucks. The way I see it, wouldn't you give up some of your freedom for the sake of the safety of innocent people? I know I would.

The problem is that Pandora's box is already wide open. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. They absolutely cannot be accounted for if they are required to be turned in. The criminals will keep using their guns, like they already do, and now innocent people will be helpless to defend themselves.

China had a series of knife and hammer attacks on school children a few years back, killing dozens and injuring dozens more. A killer is a killer is a killer.

I would happily give up all guns if every single guns was destroyed, including the ones police use. But we all know the police in America would never give their guns up. I'm not suggesting a battle or civil war at all. History has repeatedly shown who the biggest killers of innocent, unarmed people are, it's not that hard to figure out.

Aren't you afraid of government tyranny like the Nazis taking away Jewish guns?

Aren't you afraid that the UK will turn into totalitarian dictatorship because you don't have guns to protect yourself?

How can the UK can any rights for citizens at all without guns?

I would be hesitant to draw comparisons to the holocaust for any reason. I think the likelihood of a country like the UK, most western countries in fact, to be overtaken by a totalitarian dictatorship is very unlikely. The general level of education is so good that a dictator would struggle to gain support. People are very proud of democracy, shallow as it may be in its current form. The risk of an invasion from outside entities is pretty much nulled by the current nuclear state of the planet. Even if we all had guns, first of all the ration of extra deaths compared to the risk of being taken over as a nation is very slim and so morally not right to arm ourselves for that reason. Even if it did happen and we had guns, it would still be a bloody mess.

Is there anything besides education that you think is fundamentally important in preventing a totalitarian state?

Nobody has massacred innocent school children with knives

WRONG

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/asia/china-kindergarten-knife-attack/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/15/15-injured-columbine-inspired-knife-attack-russian-school/

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/pete-winn/worst-school-massacre-american-history-was-gun-free

3 in China, 1 in Russia and 1 nearly 100 years ago. But yes I suppose its wrong to say nobody.

My gun does not put anyone else in danger. It sits in a safe most days and the days it's not in a safe I use it to put holes in paper.

Its like that Jim Jefferies bit about guns

You can have irrational gun rights to own instruments of mass murder or you can slash the number of mass shootings with prudent legislation.

You can't have both. Rights are plastic. They can change at any time. Anyone praying at the mantle of the second Amendment (written for hunting muskets) needs a history lesson...and injection of humanity.

The problem is that "prudent legislation" will do absolutely nothing. It might make a difference to have a complete ban and round them all up, but banning pistol grips and collapsible stocks isn't going to do shit. Not to mention that if there was a full ban and confiscation, more people are going to die than would be killed in mass shootings in a thousand years.

Also its not like the criminals are going to give up their guns.

Ban all guns but for hunting muskets. The same sort of guns for which the 2nd Amendment was authored. That is constitutional bc it is not a complete ban on guns.

The round up and elimination of the banned guns will be relatively easy. Make any violation of the ban--mere possession or the attempt possess banned guns or ammo--a strict 20 year prison sentence with no parole. You'll see gun crime clear up in a hurry.

In that case the 1st amendment would only apply to hand-cranked printing presses. Miller and Heller basically say the 2nd amendment applies to common weapons that are suitable for military use, which oddly enough might not include muskets anymore, but almost certainly does include semi-automatic rifles.

In any case the round up of banned guns would not be easy. In the best case there are going to be a lot of dead people, in the worst case it would lead to an all-out civil war.

These kids just want to feel good about themselves for social media, they don't know wtf they're doing

Holy fuck is this conspiracy or the Donald? Shut the fuck up

What's wrong with T_D?

Pretty much the same thing that's wrong with /r/politics and pretty much any other non-hobbyist subreddit. It's biased to the point of worthlessness and actual discussion is impossible there.

It's great if you want to have your opinions fellated by like minded people; but the actual rhetoric there isn't something I agree with, so I can't even get off on the circlejerk! What good is a blowjob without the finish?

This doesn't exclude /r/conspiracy btw, it's just the nature of how Reddit works. Of course you're going to post in areas that interest you, have your opinion shaped by it, and shape that environment in turn. The issue is when the moderation team bans dissenting opinions regularly and restrict community discussion, which T_D moderation absolutely does. Normally you need to look at top posts AND at controversial to find truly valuable content on any post, which you can't really do on The_Donald (and plenty of other subreddits).

Pretty much the same thing that's wrong with /r/politics and pretty much any other non-hobbyist subreddit. It's biased to the point of worthlessness and actual discussion is impossible there.

It's great if you want to have your opinions fellated by like minded people; but most of the actual rhetoric isn't something I agree with personally, so I can't even get off on the circlejerk! What good is a blowjob without the finish?

This doesn't exclude /r/conspiracy btw, it's just the nature of how Reddit works. Of course you're going to post in areas that interest you, have your opinion shaped by it, and shape that environment in turn. The issue is when the moderation team bans dissenting opinions regularly and restrict community discussion, which T_D moderation absolutely does. Normally you need to look at top posts AND at controversial to find truly valuable content on any post, which you can't really do on The_Donald (and plenty of other subreddits).

Something I'm liking about this post is even if people are downvote brigading and shit-posting, both sides have members that are trying to talk about their viewpoint and explain why their measures are more sensible. That's democracy and the American ideal right there.

Im from Australia so im not 100% on whats going on in American politics but im guessing this is about gun control? If so i think its less about "stripping someone's of their constitutional rights" and more like these laws are stupid and allow peoppe to die so lets get them changed and make the world better.

Jesus christ did you copy paste this comment? Like a thousand other kangaroo fuckers have already said this exact thing. WE GET IT YOU AUSTRALIANS ARE PRETENTIOUS HILLBILLIES without guns. AMAZING!

Maybe because its correct

sounds more like shilling.

The definiton of shill is to spread false information. Nothing is false about how Americans shoot eachother and better gun legislation would go far in stopping that. But i get that infringes on your god given right to shoot mexicans or something. And ty for the karma on cringepics

And also i love how rather then sharing your opinion as a well informed American you choose to be a racist biggot

You think you have a "right" to own an AR-15 with a 100 capacity magazine? I never saw that in the Constitution.

AR-15's aren't any more dangerous than other weapons. I don't see the point of high capacity magazines, though.

They are actually. High velocity rifles cause significantly more damage than hand guns.

A little 22 rifle can do more dmg then larger weapons.

How that works is the bullet isn't traveling fast enough to break through bones so they bounce off of them. What many rounds have done is go into the body and then the bounce around a bit hitting more organs than they would of hit if they have more power.

Its part of the reason hunters don't want to use smaller arms because it can ruin the meat of what you shot.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.amp.html

Check out this article. It has insight from an army medical doctor comparing the injuries from high caliber weapons compared to smaller arms. He has seen first hand that the assault rifles shatter bone and the fragments are sent through out the body cavity causing much greater damage. That’s before you factor in hollow points.

Ok lets say this one person is correct and high-velocity rounds are worse.

I can still buy hi-ve 22 rounds and use them in a 22 rifle. A bit different from my first point but eh. If we want to do anything lets restrict hi-vi rounds and see what happens.

It's certain rounds that do the damage, not the weapon itself.

Yea actually, you do. Thats kinda what the whole "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shal not be infringed" part of the second amendment means. It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shal not be infringed unless someone really bad does something really bad."

We have the right to keep and bare arms because the government had just fraught a "well regulated militia" and while they realised that a militia was "necessary to the security of a free state" they also realised that that militia could also be used against the people. Because of this the people need the right to keep and bare arms as well.

Now for some quotes:

“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” – Abraham Lincoln

Weather you agree with it or not, the founding fathers wrote the second ammendment so that we would have the arms needed to defend from or even overthrow the government, this includes AR15s with 100 round .223 capacity magazines.

Even the First Amendment does not protect you from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Schenk.

The Second Amendment does not prohibit ALL regulation of guns. Do you think Bazookas are legal? .50 caliber machine guns? 105 Howitzers? We may need them to "overthrow" the government.

Even the First Amendment does not protect you from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

The First amendment does not protect you from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater when you don't believe there is a fire, this is true. But can you think of any other cases where the FIRST amendment is ignored? How about the 3rd, 4th, or 5th?

The Second Amendment does not prohibit ALL regulation of guns. Do you think Bazookas are legal? .50 caliber machine guns? 105 Howitzers? We may need them to "overthrow" the government.

In theory the Second Amendment does prohibit exactly that. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shal not be infringed" is pretty clear on that. Now, in reality, Bazookas are actually legal, you only need to register and pay tax for them.

.50 caliber machine guns as well as all other automatic firearms, are not legal to the general public, but you can get a licence to purchase and own them.

105 Howitzers I'm not exactly sure on that but I am reading that in some places you can in fact own them too.

What is interesting to me is why people think that 100 rounds in one magazine is some how more dangerous than 100 rounds in ten, 10 round magazines. Or four, 30 rounders. Even if we get rid of magazines and only allow 5 round bolt action rifles (which are generally the "acceptable" guns). If someone walks in with a bolt action rifle and 100 rounds in a bag, they are no less dangerous than if they had an AR-15, AK47 variant, M4 variant, or any other rifle with 100 rounds.

If your goal is to remove the danger, then we need to get rid of every single gun. There is no "is this safe? is that acceptable?" it has to be either "all guns are protected by our rights and we can have any gun we want" OR "Every gun needs to be gone, No more beat cops having guns, no more BB guns, nothing."

Now, Just like you are prohibited from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater unless you believe there is a fire due to the massive risk to others safety. You can be prohibited from owning firearms if you are a risk to others. the key here however is that YOU must be a risk to others. It is not a firearms fault that you want to harm people, and it is not my fault that you hurt people. So why take it out on me and on Firearms?

Ain’t no one taking my arms!! I need em! How will I jerk off?!

Maybe not a 100 round magazine, but a full-auto M16 with a 30 round magazine, as that is the usual issue weapon of infantry.

Nor is the device you used to post that comment, which is now visible to the entire planet. Totalitarian governments don't just take away guns; they lock up the copy machines, too.

Nothing is mind boggling to me when it comes to america. Im 34 and have seen the shitshow fueled by manufactured imaginary beliefs. I agree though wouldnt trust government to take more.

Jesus Christ... quit equating stricter gun control with "they are taking all our guns away".

Not a shill.

There really are politicians talking about confiscating black rifles. What is your point?

As a non-American, I've always wondered:

Do any of you guys actually believe that your guns would allow you to beat the US army if they did want to impose tyranny?

Easily.

Oh my sweet summer child.

Armed citizens outnumber our military by about 30:1. Combat-experienced veterans alone far exceed army staffing. Further, a coup would lead to massive attrition in the military - leaving few to operate all the helicopters and drones and tanks you assume will keep us under control. And all that hardware will be of little use unless the left decides to start destroying infrastructure.

I suppose neither of us knows for sure, and you seem very confident, but in a conflict between organised military and armed civilians, history tells me to bet on the military, regardless of a large difference in numbers. Plus your governments have made sure to reduce competent healthy veteran soldiers as much as possible, just by neglecting and ignoring their physical and mental health.

It assures I won't dig my own grave like tens of millions have, at the hands of tyrannical governments, over the last 70 years.

The US military has a long history of small, lightly armed, guerrilla forces giving them more than a handful. Vietnam, the Middle East, Canada back in the day, etc.. Plus, having a heavily armed populace is a strong deterrent against any kind of tyrannical conflict in the first place. if you think the military could stomp out an insurgency in a rural part of America such as, say, Appalachia, you’re crazy. The mountainous rural terrain combined with all the armed civilians spells disaster for the US military. Mountainous terrain + light armed rebels historically = bad time for the US military.

Socialist are and have been orchestrating a soft coup for years. They feel embolden stoking the fire by any means now. They are not hiding it knowing the removel of our guns will facilitate the removal of all our rights and delete our Constitution. Our right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment is clear and was created to stop this type of coup from happening. Now they are going after the children. Democratic party is showing who they really are and they our dangerous to our republic.

If there are no guns, there cannot be an attempt with guns. Isn't that solution easier than having guns to protect from other people that have guns or and arming the techers to attack stundents that have guns? (and still having more deaths because people have guns) Or you can ban guns.

A law banning guns will be followed by law-abiding citizens.

A law banning guns will not be followed by criminals.

Good thing they can't vote (yet).

If they can go to prison for a felony and die in a war, they should have the right to vote. Funny how your fanatical devotion to gun ownership is causing you to advocate stripping others of their fundamental rights. Think about it.

No, I think we need to raise all things from 18 to 21. I'm saying that kids these days are proving to be less developed than kids of previous generations.

It's likely I spend a lot more time with kids than you do, and have for most of the last 2 decades and I absolutely disagree with you. Every generation says things like this about the younger generation. Every time it's just another chorus of "You kids get off my lawn!" I hope this generation follows through on whatever activism is important to them and gets out to vote. Voter apathy is a major reason why this country is run by out of touch plutocrats. We should be encouraging them to learn how to find unbiased news sources, get informed, and exercise their rights. Those include free speech, assembly, and voting. If their speech and assembly, as well as who they will vote for, don't jibe with your beliefs, that's too bad.

Voter apathy is a major reason why this country is run by out of touch plutocrats.

100% agree!

Then why raise the voting age? Enfranchise all adults and encourage them to vote. Encourage them to be politically active. Teach them to navigate the media and form their own opinions. That's the only way things will ever change.

Propaganda is legal, you know..

Listen, guys. This won't happen. They will never take your guns so quit freaking out! They can protest and march all they want. If the countless deaths of children won't get them to do something nothing will.

"Countless"? That beautifully sums up the credibility of the anti gun astro-turfers.

It will be happen, specifically to AR-15s, due to a cumulative effect. The populace could stomach an "AR-15 shooting" in Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc, etc, etc, but critical mass isn't a theory, and if we haven't hit it yet we're getting close.

Already people who know nothing about weapons are calling for this particular gun to be banned, almost by design.

I've lived in a country where guns were illegal. Not only did I have the same amount of freedom, I could walk through urban alleys at any hour without any fear of harm.

Personally, I could easily live without the freedom to own weapons. I'm not an idiot, I understand that an authoritarian government can strip people of their freedom, I'm aware of America's history of revolution, but I think the freedoms protected in the first amendment have been much more important in establishing and protecting those freedoms than the second.

I respect your opinion on guns and your beliefs, but not your attitude. It is not "mind boggling" to want a different level of gun control than the current level of gun control. There are weapons you cannot currently purchase, and there are weapons you can purchase now that you could not purchase ten or twenty years ago.

Every law restricts freedom. The trick to making a free society is finding those wise restrictions that make all of us more free.

I'm thinking a lot of people are going to compare "Gun Control" to the "Drug War"

Step 1. Make bad drugs illegal

Step 2. Profit

Effect. Everyone's still using drugs and its nearing an epidemic.

Step 1. Make bad guns illegal

Step 2. Profit

Effect 1. lawful citizens give up their guns for free of the government.

Effect 2. Criminals still have guns. They are breaking laws anyway so why would they follow this one?

The other thing is that these shootings are in "Gun Free Zones"

If these people arnt following the "Gun Free Zone" Law then why would they follow a new law of not getting their hands onto one of these bad guns?

It is possible to restrict access to guns. There are more and less intelligent ways to do it. The restrictions do affect a person's probability of being able to obtain a weapon, both legally and illegally.

Nobody can just decide they want to do an illegal thing - they have to have the opportunity. Nuclear weapons are illegal, and the only black markets for nuclear weapons were in North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, former Soviet Russia, and those were shut down as far as you and I are concerned. AR 15s used to be banned. It's possible you could have obtained one back during the assault weapons ban, but it would have been much more difficult, with a much higher chance of failure.

Nobody thinks gun free zones protect anything other than a person's right not to be intimidated by law abiding gun owners. To protect from criminals getting access to guns, you need restrictions on markets.

There are already restrictions to get guns. Criminals arnt going through the legal ways to obtain them.

Everyone has the opportunity to be a criminal. The deciding factor is a risk assessment. If the rewards out-way the risks then boom criminal.

Restrictions on markets will not stop violence. If someone wants to injure or kill someone it doesn't mater that they cant get a gun they will use knives, rocks, acid or sticks.

I feel sorry for people that are intimidated by law abiding gun owners but then again you have a higher chance of being killed from a shark then a law abiding gun owner.

If there were shark attacks in public high schools, I would also favor shark control.

Well rip up the gun free zone signs arm teachers and poof drastic decline of problems.

Yes. Looking back on the teachers I had growing up, I can't think of a time I didn't wish they were strapping.

The real conspiracy is whoever figured out how to convince millions that this idea wasn't career endingly ridiculous.

Ah looking back when I was at school I can remember 40 or 50 vehicles that was student owned that all had at least one rifle and maybe 1 out of every 8 trucks has a pistol in there also.

Hell my truck had 2 shotguns and 3 rifles during deer and turkey season.

I could walk through urban alleys at any hour without any fear of harm.

Where did you live that they managed to eliminate crime completely? You could confiscate every single gun in the USA and I still wouldn't walk around at night downtown.

Tokyo.

No that's what the government pushes they've been doing this for years

Was literally just talking about this last night.

My whole thing with it, is these KIDS aren’t even old enough to go to Walmart and fill out the paperwork on getting a shotgun so there is 0 way they know anything about gun laws regulations or the process of legally acquiring a firearm.

So underage folks who are ignorant to an issue are marching saying take away rights we have that we don’t understand.

And before anyone says they are marching for victims not gun laws that’s not how any news source has portrayed it

Yes it is. Our kids are being indoctrinated by the far left

Lol its true and we're so happy to be here 😍🤗😗

Just throwing this out there...

I grew up and live in the liberal hippie utopia that is Vermont.

When I was 18 I went and purchased a handgun. I went to a shop and presented my ID, 20 minutes later I left with a gun.

Vermont has some of the laxest gun laws in the country and they are resoundingly liberal

Why would that be mind boggling? It happened before, when people asked to be stripped of their right to own slaves, for example. Some people think the Constitution isn't perfect and may contain harmful rights. And according to the same Constitution, it's their right to think so and to ask for a change. It's democracy. When the majority is smart, you get smart laws, and when the majority is stupid, you get stupid laws.

I thought it was only a constitutional right to bare arms because the US 'didnt' have a standing army back in the day? Which it does now. Not from the states so I don't know about the laws etc. But from a younger persons perspective; it may be safer to have stricter laws on the things that are literally killing off their friends, then solve a stain on the carpet by rubbing more blood into it.

Politicians are twisting statistical anomalies into an illusion of "literally killing off our friends" for their own gain. Don't be fooled.

socialmediamarketing #socialmediapropaganda #keeptheirbrainsdocile

Not really. I imagine if child rape were legalized people would March against that. And they're kids so most of them are doing it because their parents or the internet told them it was the right thing to do. I doubt more than 10% cared or had a serious opinion on the issue a month ago.

So I threw this together this morning out of curiosity. Source is Wikipedia.

So its actually trending up? Interesting. .

Red Army, China.

It's already happened. Now it's just happening here.

Exactly, there are major parallels between what is happening here and what happened to China. Next thing we'll hear is that they're reducing the voting age to 16.

r/howtonotgiveafuck

It's all optics. They'll use the same arguments to repeal the first amendment.Time to end the hate they'll say.The 1A is outdated and enables hate they'll say.if you oppose them you're racist.smh

Since when is asking for more background checks and not allowing mentally ill people to own guns " taking away their rights"? Nobody is seriously calling to ban all guns.

That is not what the Democrat politicians are screaming for. They are back to flogging the black rifle horse.

You have a source for that accusation?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087

That, and state and local bills popping up all over the country.

That is not a ban on all guns. Trump is the one who wants to take away people's guns.

You asked for a source regarding black rifles. You got one.

They call Trump Hitler yet Hitler took away the rights to Guns. And the kids dont want their guns and want them removed. A whole generation of Hitlers.

You are an idiot. Sensible gun laws, that's all we want. Dickhead.

What did your teacher tell you your opinion is regarding what defines "sensible" gun laws?

Nobody had to tell me a damn thing, son. Get your head out of your ass.

Could've sworn I responded to this already, but bite me.

Removed. Rule 4.

its quite scary.

Pretty sure they just want to not get shot at.

Gun control=\=Gun ban

Begging not to be shot in school actually. But carry on with your ludicrously reductionist argument. Everyone single one of them has more backbone than you.

Lots of proof in here showing how Media puts on a spin on everything.

I'm 33 and the op pov of "strip our rights away" is completely missing the point although I don't completely "side" with anyone. Other countries have better laws and gun crime rates. Not that hard to see.

Nice strawman

Those kids are being used as pawns. I'm willing to bet a good amount of those kids with March for things they have absolutely no believe in, not just no idea about, if he gets them out of school for a day. Hell, I remember being in school and being really excited for going on some horrible field trips, just because it got us out of school.

Those kids are risking suspensions, expulsion, and failing classes because they're pawns?

k.

Maybe we have differences in our locations, but the schools around me are encouraging students to participate, and some of them are even mandatory participation

Coming from a country that doesn't really have any guns, I don't get the obsession. So what if it was part of the constitution, times change and so should laws. What do you think would happen if the government was completely corrupt and wanted to kill all of you? You think your ar15s would stop a lazy old 500lb bomb? What about a nuke? What about biological weapons? They could just poison the water supply, stop all essential services, stop the food supply and there's nothing the public could do about it, job done. This would kill the majority of people. It would take alot of bad folks in the government and military for this ridiculous scenario to occur but there's no way any militia/ group of individuals could defeat the military anyway. You have the most powerful military in the world. I understand the complexities with all the gun crime and with all the guns that are already circulating in the system, id be hesitant to get rid of them as well. There's just no point in arming yourself against the government, theyre too powerful. On another note, I don't like the idea of teachers having guns but if I was one of the students of a school shooting, I'd be praying my teacher was armed and I had a little hope of survival rather than being murdered in cold blood in my classroom.

Mind boggling doesn't even do it justice. You would think these kids are just taking the history classes that would teach them what happens when governments disarm their citizens. Or they would be learning basic thinking skills that would allow them to dismiss silly anti gun arguments. Instead they're being brainwashed with progressive propaganda, so as you said, they are literally marching and begging to have constitutional rights taken away. My heart aches, my brain winces, and my jaw drops.

Regulation is not taking rights away. I mean who claims that their first amendment was violated when they say you can't use certain words in certain locations? (Hijack and fire) The second amendment is long overdue for some serious reviews as to what should be allowed and not, who can own and who cannot. Reasonable rules and regulations do not mean elimination, it means public safety is needing a little push in the right direction. You don't need guns that can spray bullets, they aren't for "protection" in any definition of the word. And if you want to get technical "well regulated militia" doesn't mean any insane lunatic should be afforded the same access as someone who is well rounded... Let's put "well regulated" back into the second amendment... Then we'll talk.

Did you know that we'll regualted meant well equipped? They wanted the states to have arms equivalent of what a standing army would. They where talking about privately owned ships possessing cannons.

No. Remember how easily deceived or manipulated you were in high school? Kinda makes sense. Some kids do, but most don't have a strong sense of conviction, at that stage your still trying to figure it all out. They never teach you the true purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Sheep's being led to slaughter. It's fine to support your fellow man, encouraged even. However, gathering to support something that will only hurt you in the long run, and that was most likely an inside job anyway, is just silly. This goes a long way towards showing others how easy it is to get the masses to follow something that you want to happen.

lol - we had a snow day in our school district. no walk-outs took place. I’m sure they will try to reschedule it. (when I say ‘they’, I do not mean the students).

Further proof that the deliberate dumbing down of public education works.

They've done a really good job all around the world to brainwash your kids into this leftist nightmare. You should see the kids in Europe. Unless you are in a bi racial relationship, you are a racist by default. Been in the making since the 70s. Didn't quite work on all of us back in the 80s but the new lot is lost in political correctness to their detriment.

They dont want rights taken away, they want a measure of control put on so that they can go to school without getting shot by a kid who has a fucking AR because his daddy likes to take him hunting.

I don’t believe the current government majority has any inclination to limit gun ownership.

I remember when I was 17. I thought I knew everything. Everything from politics to how to become a millionaire. Looking back now I can say that 17 year old didn't know shit. And I would never take that kid seriously today. Just as I do not take these kids seriously. They too, will one day mature and realize they didn't know a damn thing about how to govern a country when they were 17.

You're a the_donald poster. Donald Trump is the establishment personified. I think it's more mind-boggling that we're accepting right-wing talking points as conspiracies than as the drivel they are.

I know about the first amendment ( and your gun fetishes), but the rest of the world is significantly better with guns

Why is it surprising that not everyone is obsessed with the NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Asking for more gun control =/= "being stripped of Constitutional rights"

Implementing background checks = Taking their guns away?

Stop the ignorance and read before getting riled up and angry.

The organizers explicitly stated that they are not advocating against the second amendment, but rather stricter gun control to keep it non-partisan.

There is literally nothing wrong with kids marching for safety, but somehow you managed to get triggered by it anyways.

It’s the same concept as the Hitler youth movement. Indoctrinate them when they are young.

Its all about Universities, Media, Hollywood and now the tech industry. They want to include athletes too. Kids and teens have been indoctrinated not educated.

Started to build off of the government removing the law against propaganda being used against the US citizens. They been at this for a while now.

99% of the people just used it as an excuse to miss class.

How will more laws prevent a shooting.

You really sound like a piece of shit imo, from outside America it sounds crazy you lunatics even are allowed to have guns in the first place. Laws are meant to be changed

Is this mind boggling to anyone else?

No, school is for indoctrination not education.

You have a very poor grasp on what they are marching for.

I'm pretty sure they're actually begging to not have to worry about being shot at school because you think your right to have guns is more important than their right to "life, liberty, and happiness".

Don't like it? Find another way to stop school shootings. You've only had a few decades to find it, I'm sure you're almost there.

Their parents are being paid to stage that? Pretty sure no decent human being will do this.

Its not hard to brainwash kids, corporations do it every single day.

The ministry of love will take your guns away bc they care about you.

Welcome to room 101

It's mind boggling to me... I got mother fucking banned from r/politics for asking what would this accomplish? And they fucking banned me! Lol fuck you reddit

Everyone deserves the right to get shot in school!

Your right to free speech is limited but you still think you Auvergne freedom of speech. Limiting some guns doesn't mean you don't have the right to bare arms.

Like most "protests" these days, this is a government sponsored protest. This, and events like this, sear the event into the kids brains - school shooting - guns must be banned - must be protected.

10 years down the line, when these kids are voting in elections, they'll remember things like this and vote the way power wants them to vote. It's just getting them ready to be the kind of voters power wants them to be.

Funny, I'm not a child and I don't see this as begging to be stripped of their rights, nor do I qualify "stricter gun control" as such.

Maybe it's a difference of opinion. You stated yours, but if they share mine they they're just trying to stop more mass murders.

Again, you don't have to agree with my opinion, or what I think stricter gun control will help to avert, but at the very least you need to accept that this is a rational line of thinking that some people employ, even if you don't.

Not mind boggling at all.

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."

Scientific Outlook 1931 Bertrand Russell

MUH GUNZ!!

No. They're socialized from birth. They don't actually understand what rights are because they've never been taught.

Read this book: http://www.illuminati-news.com/e-books/DumbingDownOfAmerica.pdf

It's mind bobbling that r/conspiracy is so partisan nowadays.

There is so much wrong with this I'm not even sure where to start. First, they aren't siding with the establishment. The establishment has constantly sided with the NRA in opposing and blocking almost any meaningful gun reform. This is, actually, an anti-establishment. Or, at least, anti-the-dominate-side of the establishment.

Second, most of these kids aren't calling for all guns to be gone.

You have to realize that a lot of people view the second amendment is ridiculously outdated.

Keep in mind that, at the time it was written, the fastest reloading was about 15 seconds to reload a single shot musket, and about a minute for the more accurate rifle. Those were the commonly available arms of the day. It was widely considered that a single person with a bowie knife was far more dangerous than a single person with a musket or rifle. Let that sink in, a man with a knife was more capable of killing many people than a man with a gun.

Personally I'm torn on the matter. I get that a well-armed citizenry would be harder to handle for a tyrannical government, but with the way guns are now, it is far easier for citizens to become victims of tyrannical individuals. The idea of the second amendment is for safety from the government, but at some point we have to accept that the safety from other individuals who may deprive of us life outweighs that.

And I think most sane people agree to a matter of degrees. I've only really debated with one person who thinks that the second amendment protects the right to own nuclear weapons. Most people who consider themselves literal constitutionists struggle with this coming up with ridiculous arguments why they don't count as arms.

And this is much like these kids. I think the majority opinion is to put a restrictions on the type of weapons that are commonly used in these kind of mass shootings, and to expand background checks. While it is certainly a significant group, it is still a minority that wants to confiscate all guns. Most just want the expansion of what is considered not reasonable for an individual to own (like how we treat nuclear weapons now) to more things, or to actually implement meaningful background checks to help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. So it is unfair to claim these kids want a removal of the right.

Banning ARs hardly counts as taking away rights. Jesus Christ people.

Yeah, stupid fucking kids, not wanting to be murdered. When will they learn, amirite?!

/s

Non American here. This is crazy, I never seen a population so willing to give up there rights.

As someone who lives in a country with very little rights, let me tell you, do not let them take your 2nd ammendment. It is all downhill from there, give them an inch they take a mile

it's pathetic, really. people have been scared into submission. one day the government says "should we arm teachers?" and the next there's a front page article "teacher fires weapon in class". it's amazing that people eat this shit up

Asking for reasonable gun control policies does not equal "stripped of their constitutional rights".

What about their right of not getting murder at school by a psyco with a war machine?

Who do you think organized it? Not the kids. They are going along with some thing someone else organized and someone else sought publicity for. This is 100% dramaganda by the leftist media.

The people who are politically outspoken pawns are also the ones targeted by marketing firms. They lack critical thought.

I will just say this - almost everyone at that school knew why this happened, and those people have to know they are in part guilty for that taking place. The reasons why this happens ought to be obvious. It doesn't help that fascists (the white nationalist type) are coddled and liberal society has no answer or willingness to fight fascism; indeed I believe the powers that be are perfectly fine with white nationalists as a tool to suppress resistance, and to direct ire at the wrong targets and propagate a moronic worldview.

It really isn't about the guns, it's about coming to a consensus for more threats, more terror, and to justify the regime and social hierarchy enforced by the school system and by the present society. If this was about guns as a defense against tyranny, we would ask why the people who are most vulnerable, who actually have their rights and dignity stripped away from them, are the first ones to lose their freedom - who have, at least legally, already lost their freedom and live as legal sub-persons. And when you look at what happens, TPTB don't really care whether those people have a gun and maybe shoot a few dozen people; they're more interested in making sure such people stay in their designated social rank, that they are denied meaningful employment, that they cannot defend themselves in any legal manner whatsoever against any aggression, that they are conditioned into a state of learned helplessness. Great expense is taken to make sure the underclasses stay in their place, and that the underclasses tear each other apart and internalize their place in the greater hierarchy, and their place in the hierarchy amongst the lower orders of society.

Same day they role back regulations on Banks.

I will never understand how american belive having guns=human rights

✔ Enact Gun-Free School Zones (1990) ✔ Your children are now getting shot to death at school because good guys with guns are banned ✔ Brain wash your children to disarm everyone. ✔ Your rights have been infringed & you are now fucked. The elites of the world have won. Enjoy your future. History repeats itself, civilizations rise and fall, ours will fall unless you stand up and protect your rights for the present and the future.

 

✔ Enact Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Introduced in the Senate as S.3266 by Joe Biden(Democrat) on October 27, 1990. Ban guns that could protect your children from said ban guns.

 

✔ Rick Scott(Republican) stated his support of raising the minimum age to purchase any firearm from 18 to 21; currently in Florida, 21 is the minimum age to buy a handgun, but rifles can be purchased at age 18. In March 2018, the Florida Legislature passed a bill titled the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act which incorporates many of the issues Scott supported. It raises the minimum age for buying firearms to 21. Shall not be infringed, has just been infringed.

 

✔ It doesn't matter if your a Republican or a Democrat, black or white. We are all being controlled by which only truly matters, the top elites vs non elites(us). They are going to make us fight each other and make us disarm ourselves and disarm our rights.

 

✔ The Enough! National School Walkout* was a walkout planned by organizers of the Women's March(ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, LINDA SARSOUR IS A BOARD MEMBER)(Woman's March Organizers are all Obama Administration era social justice warriors, these people are not Americans, they have no american values and are mentally fucking ill, they are brain washing your children.) , that occurred on March 14, in response to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The protest had students, parents, and gun control supporters leaving schools for seventeen minutes (one minute for each person who died during the shooting) starting at 10:00am in their respective time zone.

An estimated 3,000 schools participated in the protest. Thousands of students gathered outside the White House, in Washington, D.C.

Nearly 200 U.S. colleges committed to defending #NeverAgain added their names to #NeverAgain Colleges, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Harvard University, Yale University, Columbia University, and the University of Florida. The colleges will not penalize high school students that take part in peaceful Never Again MSD protests, and will protect students who face disciplinary action.

They are asking for any asshole with a few hundred bucks to not be able to buy a weapon capable of instant mass murder so simple a toddler could use it.

Did you complain about box cutters being banned from airplanes?

No - because when you are attacked - it makes sense to respond with appropriate changes.

Literally n o b o d y is calling for all guns to be banned.

They want ANY response at all from the government other than "Thoughts and Prayers"

Why aren't they marching to stop bullying, more kids commit suicide from bullying than are shot in these school shootings! Because bullying is accepted by teachers, schoolboards, education ministers and is accepted as part of school culture in America. How many shooters were bullyied?

the regressive left knew kids will skip school for any reason. they're useful idiots. I clutch my guns harder than they clutch their pearls but I would have ditched school for any reason back when I was in high school. They're using that to their advantage regardless of how obvious and disgusting it is. They literally have no shame.

What kind of right wing bullshit is this? First of all - this isn't a conspiracy. And second, you're making a HUGE LEAP from "ban the sale of semi/automatic weapons of war" to "begging to have their rights taken away." The right to bear arms is not limitless. Literally no one is trying to come to your house and take away all your guns. This is ridiculous and doesn't belong in this sub.

Give me one good reason why anyone needs an AR15 other than because its your right.

The successful result of decades of public educational fear indoctrination and dumbing down of our future generations.

The indoctrination of the youth is easier than ever with disgusting apps like Snapchat.

That's what happens when you let the government raise your kids in public school.

This is not about safety or the children. This is about exploiting a national tragedy to take away our rights, just like they did with 9/11.

They don’t necessarily want it taken away. They want it to be refined to a more secure process of buying weapons mostly. Not only that, but I can guarantee it was about the 17 killed students too.

I’d see the day when the youth were siding with the government/establishment and asking to be stripped of their constitutional rights

That is a very biased manner to portray their actions. I could say "those students are protesting their rights to life which are unduly threatened by the proliferation of firearms," which would be equally unfair.

Also, the "establishment" is absurdly pro gun-rights. Do you even follow any news at all or what? If anything, taking away all the guns would be massively anti-establishment.

Abolish the 2nd

It really help you to understand Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. If you convince people they are doing it for the great good, they will go alone with some pretty crazy stuff.

Most Republicans don't want state health care.

That's also a right they're just trying to repeal.

youth is just a new word for retards.

Spoke with some friends with kids. Can verify at least 4 schools in Florida were mandatory walks out led by faculty. The parents received letters about a “safety meeting”. 100% bamboozle

Well, people of the well regulated armed militia, in terms up protecting yourselves from a tyrannical government, how would you say it's going so far ?

what's mind-boggling is that a 49 yr old person would bray like a jackass about gunsand bu-bu-but mah rights vs the lives of kids...your country is literally a cesspool of uneducated, propagandized morons...

They say, “Trump is Hitler.” Then they want to give him all the guns. They want to give “Hitler” all the guns.

I mean, the right for adults to have guns whenever they want seems to infringe on the kid's rights to learn without getting shot to pieces, so you can see why they might have an aversion to it.

The OP of this post is an old dense twat.

This is legit russian propaganda.

I don't believe we should be certain weapons. Just make the background checks more stringent. And remove the rule where if it takes too long they get approved

Programmed walking dead zombies. READ WHATS ON FACEBOOK! Protest freedom!

it is their right as an American citizen. once they reach the age of 18 they may exercise that right.

It is a right that they have been indoctrinated into hating. They don't care about that one, so taking it from others does not rate on their give a shit meter.

You’re assuming that every journalist plays by the same ethical rule book as you and unfortunately this isn’t the case. It’s likely they presented the case however they wanted to and shot footage on “both sides” and edited them out to either agree with each other (ie both sides finding a common ground that guns=bad) or they edited it to show more conflict than already existed (sex sells and when there’s no sex, sell conflict!). Ethics stops at the line where you need to put food on your table, and some guy in a film editing room is editing your footage without you, and your boss wants to drive something home.

Have you taken an ethics class yet? If so, did you discuss the separation between a journalist and management? This is a pretty common topic in most ethics classes because a manager doesn’t necessarily hold the same ethical standards as you and they don’t answer to your ethics. They answer to the money people who fund the projects/company. Those people have an agenda and couldn’t care less about your ethics or what you actually believe in.

Gets what? How to wrap wide swathes of people into one stereotype blanket statement? How to regurgitate propaganda? How to engage in ad hominem? Exactly what is he getting?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/poll-82-dems-favor-banning-semiautomatic-weapons-evenly-split-banning-guns/

This poll shows differently. Read my clarifications on the other reply.

If you are a journalism major ... have you ever heard of Edward Bernays? He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, applied his uncle's theories to the field of propaganda. He developed a template for manipulating a free press in a democratic society, and called it "public relations" because "propaganda" sounds bad.

Very interesting man, and his techniques remain in common use almost a century later. I feel that everyone should at least understand how he engineered the Guatemalan coup of 1954, as every American war since has been sold on similar grounds to the American people.

The BBC documentary, The Century of Self, is a great place to start. Free.

It's perfectly legal to yell Fire! in a crowded theater. I don't know what you are trying to say, but you've mostly just embarrassed yourself publicly here.

Are you saying there are no school kids that get drunk or smoke cigs?

Gun rights are like slave rights 150 years ago. Some countries outlawed slavery, most didn't. There is right and wrong, and only a few countries get it right.

If we have a right to life, THEN WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND IT.

It isn't, at all. Everyone should give it a read, especially when you're 18 and starting your life off.

[I've used this image when talking about how media can "angle" a story:]

(https://imgur.com/gallery/wRdbna2)

Not in their classrooms

Oh my sweet summer child.

HE gets that you can use a few buzz words and talking points without having to form your own opinion?

Also its not like the criminals are going to give up their guns.

Have you even been to Chicago? Do you know where the guns come from in most Chicago crime? If guns are a deterrent then why does the US have the highest gun ownership in the modern world and still suffer drastically more shootings than other nations

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.amp.html

Check out this article. It has insight from an army medical doctor comparing the injuries from high caliber weapons compared to smaller arms. He has seen first hand that the assault rifles shatter bone and the fragments are sent through out the body cavity causing much greater damage. That’s before you factor in hollow points.

It is possible to restrict access to guns. There are more and less intelligent ways to do it. The restrictions do affect a person's probability of being able to obtain a weapon, both legally and illegally.

Nobody can just decide they want to do an illegal thing - they have to have the opportunity. Nuclear weapons are illegal, and the only black markets for nuclear weapons were in North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, former Soviet Russia, and those were shut down as far as you and I are concerned. AR 15s used to be banned. It's possible you could have obtained one back during the assault weapons ban, but it would have been much more difficult, with a much higher chance of failure.

Nobody thinks gun free zones protect anything other than a person's right not to be intimidated by law abiding gun owners. To protect from criminals getting access to guns, you need restrictions on markets.

There are already restrictions to get guns. Criminals arnt going through the legal ways to obtain them.

Everyone has the opportunity to be a criminal. The deciding factor is a risk assessment. If the rewards out-way the risks then boom criminal.

Restrictions on markets will not stop violence. If someone wants to injure or kill someone it doesn't mater that they cant get a gun they will use knives, rocks, acid or sticks.

I feel sorry for people that are intimidated by law abiding gun owners but then again you have a higher chance of being killed from a shark then a law abiding gun owner.

I don’t think all weapons is the goal. That’s certainly not possible. However, i think the goal is to eliminate all unnecessary weapons that are more likely to produce a high body count. Idc if a mass shooting was done with a glock, the point is an AR-15 or something similar produces a greater chance to produce a higher body count. And if everyone who is against banning assault rifles explains that we need them to fight the government, I’ll just say: “Well...you were just explaining how the entire VT shooting was committed with just handguns...won’t those do the same damage against the government if that’s what you’re claiming?”

Ban all guns but for hunting muskets. The same sort of guns for which the 2nd Amendment was authored. That is constitutional bc it is not a complete ban on guns.

The round up and elimination of the banned guns will be relatively easy. Make any violation of the ban--mere possession or the attempt possess banned guns or ammo--a strict 20 year prison sentence with no parole. You'll see gun crime clear up in a hurry.

In that case the 1st amendment would only apply to hand-cranked printing presses. Miller and Heller basically say the 2nd amendment applies to common weapons that are suitable for military use, which oddly enough might not include muskets anymore, but almost certainly does include semi-automatic rifles.

In any case the round up of banned guns would not be easy. In the best case there are going to be a lot of dead people, in the worst case it would lead to an all-out civil war.

Your religious rights aren't human rights. That's why religious rights are different all over the world. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Inequality of what? Youre telling me that hard work and self motivation doesnt get you anywhere? I am a man of color and with these two things I have gotten a pretty decent job and taking care of a pretty good size family at my age and still the only bread maker. Also the state I live in doesnt help at all.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Very bottom chart. Sure homicides reduced but again not by a lot. You even saw a homicide spike after the gun ban in 99 when the gun ban was in 96 for Australia.

Youre telling me France the worlds most gun restricted place on the Earth yet people still some how was able to get fully automatic AK 47s and RPGs. They got a grenade launcher in France. I mean cmon now.

Sure they went through terroist and gun connections but its crazy what a man the the armed forces like Navy Army Marine Corp or Air Force that works in an Armoury can get you. Fully automatic guns and actual military grade gear. Go ahead and ban. These people will be here to sell you your tax dollar equipment back to you. These are schemes still going on now a days. Recently a group was caught doing this but after he made a small fortune and was doing for years at many bases he was stationed at. Fuck in my old military town someone gut the gate and stole a loaded AT4 rocket launcher from the base. Base was shut down and on lock but they person still got away. I wonder where it is now?

Yeah, nah. I'm old as dirt! It sincerely wasn't meant to be an attack, but sympathy. I'm sorry you felt that way.