Oh you mean like when people used fictional children being fictionally abused in a fictional secret chamber under a (admittedly real) pizza joint in DC to vilify a political party...right? Agreed. That was totally fucked up.
Notice how they always obsess over Satanic ritual child abuse? You wouldn't want them actually investigating their church officials now would you? You have to just trust in God. These people are here for your kids to make sure they don't turn gay or let an atheist teach them about science.
Ah yes, the dwindling rate of Christianity and general apathetic religious beliefs if not outright atheism is really an oppressive force in the U.S society. Millennials & Gen Z are extremely left-leaning and non-religious or if a little, it's "spiritual but not religious".
Of course your side is concerned with children. Granted, imaginary children but concerned nonetheless. The other side? The one that has made gun control a recent issue in response to children being killed in classrooms? Real children who are actually dead? They’re not really concerned with children. They’re pushing an agenda.
So is it or is it not something worth trying to change? Yes or no?
Ah yes, let's all hold hands into the mud pit so we can sling shit at each other over "fascists" and "libtards". That's the way it's always been done and by God, we won't be breaking from tradition!
The shortcomings by the mental health care system, local police and fbi can all certainly be addressed. School officals are encouraged to not cooperate with local police and to fluff disciplinary records to receive more federal funding.
I know you think you are morally superior for wanting to ban guns, but unless you call for a constitutional convention it’s not happing.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Please don't construct your own false narrative around my desires. I have not said anything about "wanting to ban guns". Not that I should have surprised, given the content of your last comment.
We agree there are shortcomings. So let's address them and try to get some real change.
We need more people like you in r/conspiracy. Wish they would reflect on themselves and realize their hypocrisy. The latest trend in r/conspiracy is how Florida was a false flag and that these kids are just controlled opposition trying to take away guns away completely, but the Maryland shooting proves we need more guns in schools.
Why should they reflect when they made an excellent point at the hypocritical nature of the conservative right that is pushing agendas that these people should not be heard, that they are actors, etc.
I'm sure you'll show up and post the same response the next time somebody is criticizing democrats.
I will and regularly do. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then Trump and blue team for every other option in the general, weren't any third parties that I saw to choose from outside the presidential ticket. Trump sucked nuts and lied to us, not entirely surprisingly. It's not impossible he will still do something good, but I am not going to hold my breath.
I want candidates with integrity. That is part of the justification for me saying Trump sucked. He made it obvious he wasn't going to drain the swamp before he even swore in. Bernie Sanders is at least mostly consistent, harps on billionaires (who, imo, got us into this mess), and seems to have more integrity than any of the other options. Ron Paul is the only other presidential candidate I've ever seen with a measure of integrity.
If we had politicians who were held accountable for their actions and had integrity, the political process would be working. Alas, we do not, and the media on either side makes claims like "red team bad, blue team good!" and conversely "blue team bad, red team good!" dividing the population on imaginary lines when virtually everyone wants the same things, and virtually none of our politicians are even trying to get us those things.
This isn't true, and depending on your beliefs one party definitely IS worse than the other. My parents don't want transgendered people to be able to use the same bathrooms as them, and I could not care less. Now, I would agree with you if you were to say that this issue was created by politicians as a ruse to keep people divided over shit that doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. I mean, those politicians artificially created this issue, but it was still created. There were actual laws passed. You can't say the party divide in America is pointless, because one party being in power makes different REAL things happen than when the other party is in power. It DOES matter.
Both parties make the military industrial complex richer at the expense of the lives of civilians in countries all over the world, both parties want us to hate each other for things like skin color, sexual orientation, and various sky fairies who will either give us presents if we are good and coal if we are bad, and both parties want to keep us confused, dumb, and misinformed.
Your bathroom point is exactly what I'm talking about. It genuinely does not matter, but the media is making it into a big issue to divide us so we do not work together to topple the oppressors.
This is not to say that there are no politicians with good intentions. There absolutely are, on both sides, but the majority of politicians on both sides are coopted in one way or another to just maintain the status quo for the billionaire elite. There are Democrats who want to dial back on the military (though not many who vote that way consistently.) There are Republicans who believe that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and believe states rights should be preferred (though not many who vote that way consistently.)
I think even with abortion that people on both sides have some good points, I lean left, but I honestly couldn't care less while we're murdering people in the Middle East with bombs that were paid for by money we don't have at the expense of American taxpayers who don't want the bombs dropped in the first place.
It's figuratively a reality TV show and a sleight of hand to keep us distracted while they literally pick our pockets and murder innocent people all around the world.
I think you're missing my point. The transgender bathroom stuff should NOT be an issue, it literally is a distraction from more important stuff, like you said. But, IT IS HAPPENING.
If somebody is robbing a bank, and then right as they leave the bank they toss a grenade over their should back into the bank, are you supposed to say "well that grenade is obviously just a distraction so that we don't call the police, I'm just going to ignore it even though it's about to explode in my face" ? Or do you overcome the grenade "obstacle" and then figure out how to stop the guys from doing it again?
The bathroom bill stuff is the same thing, it shouldn't have been made to happen, but these laws really were passed. And it affected the real lives of real people. What are we supposed to do, let those people suffer because their lives aren't the "real issues"?
Okay, so there's people fighting tribal wars over access to clean water right now. Should we ignore that so we can focus on the real issue of domestic surveillance? Or is domestic surveillance just a distraction from the real issue of perpetual warfare? Or is perpetual warfare the distraction from the real issue of central banking?
The media didn't make the bathroom stuff into an issue in order to divide people. People where already divided over it, and the media talked about it, for ratings, because they make money when people watch them. My parents wanted those kinds of laws before it was controversial. The media didn't give them that view.
I think you're missing my point. The transgender bathroom stuff should NOT be an issue, it literally is a distraction from more important stuff, like you said. But, IT IS HAPPENING.
This appears artificial to me. A discomfort for a few people that was delicately nurtured into an intense hatred. As it became more common for people on TV to express this bigotry, others adopted the feeling.
Okay, so there's people fighting tribal wars over access to clean water right now. Should we ignore that so we can focus on the real issue of domestic surveillance? Or is domestic surveillance just a distraction from the real issue of perpetual warfare? Or is perpetual warfare the distraction from the real issue of central banking?
No, this is all real. Artificially inflated poverty is exacerbating a lot of the contention over shit that doesn't matter because people think it's some power they can flex, and they think they will feel better if someone send lesser to them.
The media didn't make the bathroom stuff into an issue in order to divide people. People where already divided over it, and the media talked about it, for ratings, because they make money when people watch them. My parents wanted those kinds of laws before it was controversial. The media didn't give them that view.
People had opinions about "deviants" and the media stirred that shit up for ratings and agenda shaping.
To be clear, I'm not trying to discount your perspective on how things are, but rather, I am explaining my perspective. Experience has led me to believe these things, but it's fluid, and as I learn more, I readjust.
I probably do need to reflect more in my personal life—don’t we all—but here I was simply pointing out how asinine and hypocritical the opponents of modest, Constitutional, common-sense gun control are.
Well, it depends on the proposals, of course. But my position is that gun owner/operators should be subject to similar regulations as other participants in dangerous activities--private pilots is the example I tend to point to, just because it's something I know a little about, but there are others. So, in a nutshell: training, background checks, registration, and limitations on the kinds of equipment non-professionals can have.
Such regulations are modest. They present a slight burden on those who wish to participate in an activity that presents a heightened danger to the public, but that burden is proportional to the potential for harm.
Such regulations are Constitutional. Justice Scalia's articulation of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller does an excellent job of interpreting the Constitutionality of firearms regulation. It acknowledges that the Second Amendment articulates an inherent and individual right of Americans to bear arms (and let's face it, anyone who argues otherwise is being pretty disingenuous). But Scalia famously goes on to acknowledge that this right, like most natural or Constitutional rights, is not unlimited: it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." It is not the right to carry "dangerous and unusual weapons". And the Court explicitly upheld the Constitutionality of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" (emphasis mine).
Such regulations are common sense. Most people would agree--that is, it is commonly held as sensible--that individual citizens should not be permitted to own and operate high-yield nuclear weapons. Most people would agree that the law should not permit someone like Khalid Shiekh Mohammad or Timothy McVeigh to walk the streets with a Barrett M82. So it is common sense that some kinds of regulations are called for. Where people start to disagree, where things start to get messy, is where to draw the line on those regulations. I would argue that my proposed regulations present the minimal level of regulation possible to ensure that the commonly-held concerns about criminals and nutcases having easy access to firearms and about private ownership of extremely dangerous weapons.
So, there you go. A framework for modest, Constitutional, and common-sense regulation of weapons.
In light of the high ranking pedos in the U.K., I feel like pizza gate hit a nerve with some powerful folk in America. But then I think it was completely co-opted and driven to the point where it seemed ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the whole pizza parlor thing was probably not true. But there are almost certainly politicians who are pedophiles and I'm betting they're controlled by our intelligence agencies because that sort of leverage is unbeatable. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is why this conspiracy theory went from being seen as plausible to bat shit crazy in no time flat. After all, agent provocateurs are easy to enlist in online battles and if anyone knows how to tarnish an image it's the spooks.
Absolutely. It was stunning how quickly anything related to PG other than the official "debunking" was censored, including the subreddit. That in itself was soo suspicious.
Pizzagate was an attempt to construct some kind of conspiracy out of a bunch of emails that would otherwise be pretty boring. It was used as a political tool before an election.
Pretending that pizzagate was actually about general pedophiles in positions of power is an attempt to rewrite history. After it had run its course and went nowhere, people gradually changed the discussion to pedogate and pretended that critics of pizzagate where actually denying any pedophilic crimes instead of a made up email code.
Gonna edit in an old post I wrote about the “dominoes on pizza” email in a sec. it’s one of the go to examples of Pizzagate being a real thing big if you actually look into the Podesta emails you can see it’s innocuous
That's not a very accurate portrayal of pizzagate. Hell, there wasn't even a basement!
Suffice to say that when a creepy looking dude who was going to be secretary of state? is being invited to take part in satanic rituals, some people get curious.
Most don't. Most people let people like stephen colbert tell them what pizzagate was by way of incorrectly rattling off various things about it and what it alleged.
But anyhow, why don't you go to your father John's house. I think the hot tub is all warmed up.
I think your comment was pretty badly written but to summarize what I got from it: Podesta had it coming anyways, the people who think Pizzagate is bullshit can’t think for themselves and I‘m a shill. I love that level of discussion.
People can think pg is bs all they want. But when people say things are debunked when they're not, they lose a bit of credibility.
Same with the seth rich case. media outlets repeatedly say things like "debunked" but in reality nothing's debunked because the case isn't solved.
Imagine if Hillary won, and Podesta was among the most powerful people in the country, and then people found out he's getting invited to take part in satanic rituals. Or that his brother has an underground theater for viewing "sensitive" materials.
Alot of this is fun to talk about right now because so many people are hot for russia despite the lack of evidence, and many people are caught defending one thing while saying another equally questionable thing is ok.
Hey, I actually agree with you that calling it debunked is wrong. You can’t actually debunk that stuff.
I could claim the sentences you wrote summoned demons and there is no way you could debunk that. That’s why I call bullshit just bullshit.
But if you think a made up email code is better evidence than personal meetings of affiliated persons with Russian operatives and lies over lies about that topic I really think it’s a hopeless case.
Look at us. You agreed on the internet... my god. headway.
"making up" email code is one of the fallacies of pg though. You can go google the cop that recently got arrested looking for cheese pizza on craigslist. I'm not even into pg per-se.
I agree that with many of the examples given for code, there are huge leaps. pizza isn't one of those leaps though, as it's been shown to have been around for a long time.
I don't see anybody recognizing the positives that came out of PG. It brought alot of attention to topics like human trafficking, online predators, cp.
But you know, it's just so easy to coopt things. Or ridicule something to the point that most people don't look further than a silly name.
You’re right with the pizza thing. That’s the word they used to start the thing. Then the rest followed as it fitted the story.
PG also definitely brought more attention to other thing in specific places on the internet, but everything involving kids has always been a huge scandal once it became public knowledge. The influence on the perception of the general public is pretty insignificant as far as I can see.
And while the name pizzagate does sound silly, the thing is in itself ridiculous when looking at how it developed. I don’t even want to call it a conspiracy theory, because I believe the original inventors knew exactly that they made something up for political reasons. I guess that’s my conspiracy theory regarding the whole thing.
The sense that I got--which is admittedly 100% anecdotal and based solely on opinions I saw puked up here on Reddit--was that that was not the case at all.
It also wasn't targeted at Democrats, in particular. There's no way that a massive pedophilia ring would only be perpetuated by one party. It either doesn't exist (at that level of government, the existence of child prostitution isn't really questioned afaik) or it's a blackmail scheme for powerful figures regardless of political affiliation.
CPP is perv city, judge by what music bands they host there, not to mention the Trump inauguration gas attack people planned their attack there (on video), they got off because friends of HRC, same as the 08 Denver assassins.
Among friends, we all (well those of us who have friends, which I know excludes many pizzagate proponents) we all develop secret codes and terms that make their way into our communications. Sometimes these codes conceal serious or even illegal topics—marital infidelity, say, or recreational cocaine use.
So when you see someone using such a code, it’s natural to say “hmmm”. But to jump right to kiddie touching in a pizza joint with no further evidence takes a special kind of dumb and sick.
I don't recall the specifics of the Instagram stuff, although I do remember looking at them and not finding them convincing at the time.
If you have a second, and if you can send me a link (PM is fine), I'd be happy to review and re-evaluate. I like to try to keep an open mind, even when it comes to stuff I've already "made up my mind" on!
Go to the pizzagate sub of voat (reddit admins have banned direct links). They have a stickied post that summarizes the (circumstancial) evidence and has links to archives of the Instagram posts.
Thanks; another commenter linked me to a collection of Instagram posts by James Alefenatis, and while I think his sense of humor and taste in art are highly questionable, I don't see anything that rises to the level of a "smoking gun". To be honest, to me the fact that people see his (admittedly weird) posts and immediately jump to fabricating a sick, intricate, elaborate, and detailed fantasy about kids being molested raises more questions about the theory-makers than about Alefenatis (who again, I must stress, seems like a very odd and rather unpleasant character).
If the need for vengeance is ignored then I think pizzagate has actually achieved a goal.
Given the amount of exposure he's recieved, Alefanatis certainly isn't going to be able to do anything he's been accused of in the future. Too many eyes are on him.
Well that's just terribly twisted logic...by your reasoning, we should just accuse everyone we think is a little weird of horrible horrible crimes just in case they might someday consider committing those horrible crimes, and thereby prevent them from doing so. It's all bit too Orwellian and anti-Due Process for me.
So we should lay false accusations against all people with friends in high places? Or just those who have weird tastes in art? Or just those whose political opinions we disagree with?
(Sorry, I know you're not suggesting we do any of those things; I just think its an approach that could lead to some pretty scary places).
I read through all of them. They’re a bit odd, at times, and maybe reflect a secret understanding of some kind among the parties—a sort of “isoculture” of this particular group of powerful people.
But nowhere did I see any evidence pointing to pedophilia, much less pedophilia in a pizza restaurant.
Among friends, we all (well those of us who have friends, which I know excludes many pizzagate proponents) we all develop secret codes and terms that make their way into our communications. Sometimes these codes conceal serious or even illegal topics—marital infidelity, say, or recreational cocaine use.
So when you see someone using such a code, it’s natural to say “hmmm”. But to jump right to kiddie touching in a pizza joint with no further evidence takes a special kind of dumb and sick.
Pizzagate has legitimate circumstantial evidence that should be looked into. What is wrong with you people who want to just brush it away like it’s nothing. There’s far more evidence of pizzagate than Russian collusion lol
I've reviewed the so-called "evidence" of pizzagate, and find it completely baseless.
I've reviewed the publicly available evidence of Russian interference in the US democratic process, and find it compelling. I also--cautiously and with a shaker full of salt--give weight to the conclusions drawn by 100% of our intelligence agencies based on non-public information they have access to.
Huh? I've read that like 15 times now and I don't see where she is inviting people to fucking have sex with her fucking kids. Jesus. What is wrong with you people that you read kiddie-sex into every possible mention of a child?
Right on; again, I'm happy to examine new evidence (or at least new-to-me evidence) and re-evaluate my position on this whole thing. I've just never seen anything that convinces me that there's anything to these bizarre accusations, and extraordinary accusations call for extraordinary, or at least very convincing, evidence.
Well, as the OP of this particular thread, I can only speak for myself, but yes, I’m a real person and not a shill. I own guns. I’m a mainline Protestant Christian.
I do my best to think critically about history and current events. And in doing so, I may come to very different conclusions than you—that doesn’t make me a “shill”. I suspect that is the case for many people who don’t agree with you.
Why can’t you accept the fact that many Americans believe in common sense gun regulation and don’t believe in fucking pizzagate?
Call it whatever you want. The parents don't want it and you're not willing to shell out the time or money to raise that child yourself with every bit of care they would need from a real parent.
Idk what kind of vibe my comment gave off, but I'm not pro-abortion if it's some dumbass kid that didn't use protection and is too lazy to raise it. In other scenarios, sure.
There's plenty of couples trying to adopt. Think of all the women unable to conceive for any number of reasons. All of the gay/lesbian couples looking to adopt. There's plenty of reasons for not being able to have a kid on your own.
Doesn't change the fact that taxpayers still have to shell out money to have little thot Stacy suck the fetus out of her womb because she was too stupid to use protection. People are using abortion as a form of birth control and it's fucked up.
I'll pay for Stacy's abortion myself if it means not having to subsidize her child's expenses with taxes for the next 18 years. Your arguments are laughably bad.
That’s the point - that’s a big if. Kids get lost on waiting lists andget shuffled from adoption lists to Foster homes all the time, and some of them are Never kept anywhere long before they turn 18. You’re speaking as if the system they go into has an even decent track record of success. This is not the case.
At what cost? $1000 so we don't pay the extra welfare and tax breaks later on?
Pretending people use abortion as birth control is nonsense. Besides it's the people that are too stupid to use protection that end up fucking up their kids. I wouldn't even trust them not to fuck up the pregnancy.
Is it too late to abort you? I'd gladly pay 20 cents (double my share of Pp funding that would go to abortion services) to get a second opinion on that.
How much shock are you to learn that the average tax payer's cut to Pp abortion services like 10 cents? It took me about ten minutes to figure that out. But then again, I try not to look like a tool when I comment.
I just picked the first mass murderer that came to mind, because that’s what we’re talking about.
Think about the arguments. “They’re not fully developed.” Cool, so you wanna exterminate all the disabled people? “I can’t afford to give this baby a good life.” So you wanna kill the poor people? Even the rhetoric is exactly the same as the Nazis.
What needs to come in? The nose? The ears? The toenails? And if a baby is delivered without one or all of these body parts, or any one of them is deformed does that make that child not “developed” enough for life?
The ability to think, to feel pain or respond to stimulus - more than physical appearance.
Day one is an egg and a sperm... Would ending that be "killing" it, in your view? Day 270ish is a baby ready to be born. Somewhere in there is a line that starts to be crossed between person and hopefully cellular growth.
As early as Week 3 the cells start dividing. (Which is a response to a stimulus btw.) If NASA discovered single, non-dividing cells on Mars tomorrow you know what the headline in the New York Times would read: “Life”
Are you under the impression that there is a shortage of kids up for adoption? Do you know know how many kids right now are without a good home? We don't need more kids in the foster care system. Why you think we do is beyond me.
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".
It probably shouldn't be Antifa's business beating defenseless old men with bike locks, or throwing rocks at police and people they disagree with politically. Huh.
No, the argument was in response to someone saying “BUT I DON’T WANT MUH TAXES GOING TOWARDS AN ABORTION, IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE,” followed by someone pointing out that if your worry over abortions is about Cost, a child floating around the foster system is a Far greater burden on the system financially. Anti-abortionists brought up costs first. Scroll up and see.
and yet practising forms of Eugenics strengthens the gene pool and could make our species hardier to diseases and genetic disorders.
It's like when stem cell research was banned in the US and the UK because of dumb religious ethical arguments and scare tactics of "playing god" and "designer babies" I remember the scare articles in the paper from when I was really young ignoring the obvious medical benefits.
We are only now starting to see the benefits of stem cell research medically and I ask myself how far behind are we now because of that ban. It's like when sciences were banned by the RC church and Islam and put as in a one thousand year black hole all because they didn't want to lose their power. Imagine where we could be now if it wasn't for these corrupt institutions.
“In Iceland, upward of 85 percent of pregnant women opt for the prenatal testing, which has produced a Down syndrome elimination rate approaching 100 percent. Agusta was one of only three Down syndrome babies born there in 2009. Iceland could have moved one-third of the way to its goal if only Agusta had been detected and eliminated. Agusta’s mother is glad the screening failed in her case.”
My brother has downs syndrome, and it sickens me that the right wing has taken to using people like him as a bludgeoning tool in the abortion debate.
Once somebody is born with downs syndrome, they should be able to lead a happy and as close to normal life as possible.
If they detect ANY significant birth defect well enough in advance, the parents shouldn't be expected to bring that pregnancy to term and create a person that will suffer from an affliction or a condition unnecessarily.
Using people that have already been born, that have downs syndrome, to evoke sympathy for potential people with downs syndrome, that haven't even been conceived or born yet, is disingenuous.
I have a brother on the Spectrum and t sickens me to the core, and all but destroys my faith in humanity, that any quasi-reasonable person could argue that terminating a life is preferable to suffering any sort of condition. It’s absolutely disgusting, and not all that far removed from Hitler and his cronies wanting to kill people who “suffered” from the condition of being Jewish. What you’re arguing when you “detect it early and stamp it out” is eugenics, simple and plain.
Okay, instead of going around in circles in this conversation, let's agree that the thing we ACTUALLY disagree on is whether early abortion really is "terminating a life" or not.
Since you understand that I don't believe early abortion is "terminating a life", you can probably imagine that comparing me to Hitler and my beliefs to eugenics is a little bit of a non-starter.
So basically, anytime someone has an opinion that is younger than you.. you just assume that it has to be some political agenda and that they are just useful idiots? Many people should look at who the real useful idiots are, and it isn't these teens.
But let's say you are not.... These kids are being used. Anyone that thinks they have a constitutional right to a backpack but doesn't understand the right to self defense is not useful in gun law debate.
Not from tyranny. It is literally a contradiction. If a government is tyrannical, then you have no right to defend yourself.
For example, I think its tyrannical that the government tells me I cant smoke weed. I truly do. Why does the government have the power to tell me that with the penalty of locking me in a cage? Now lets say the FBI or DEA or whatever raided my house and found alot of drugs. They attempt to arrest me and my family so I use my "2nd amendment right" to fight against the tyrannical government. Its pretty easy to imagine what would happen to me in this scenario.
This is why the "protect yourself from a tyrannical government" argument is bullshit
Some want to ban bump stocks. Some want to ban ar-15s. Some want to ban all semi-auto rifles. Some want to ban all semi-auto weapons. Some want to ban all guns. Some want to remove the rights of adults aged 18-21 to buy a gun.
They are infringing on the right to bear arms. This is not difficult to pick up.
Huh? You essentially said nobody is trying to reduce rights. Just open your ears and you will hear the talking heads and students from Parkland trying to stop people from owning certain items. "They" range from people speaking their minds on cnn, to signs protestors were carrying for the march, to the stated goals of organizations such as Everytown, to Diane Fienstien saying that the stated goal is to have "Mr and Mrs America" "turn in their guns". Or maybe the gun laws that were introduced to ban and confiscate semi-automatic rifles? Do the new state minimum age laws not reduce the rights or US citizens who are 18-21 years old?
Tell me which one of those example you can't Google yourself. How can you possibly be aware of the current political climate and say nobody is trying to reduce rights?
See how easy it is to type something without actually saying anything?
Five year olds are "old enough to fire a gun" technically speaking. Why are you trying to take away the rights of adults in the US to defend themselves?
I agree with all those statements. If you are mature enough to make the decision to enlist or control 2 tons of vehicle then you should be able to vote.
What are you talking about? The fact that they don't want to use clear backpacks to show their tampons, or if they want some rights to privacy? Why not make other real suggestions instead of giving one answer and acting like that nothing can exist outside of that? Seems very ignorant, and obviously more like you have an agenda.
The fact that they don't want to use clear backpacks to show their tampons
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Some of the most vocal protesters do not know the difference between a want (non-clear backpacks) and actual acknowledged rights.
Now, you ask for some suggestions, I ask for what? The roughly 15,000 gun murders per year? We can start to worry about that when it becomes more than a five-thousandth of the percentage of deaths in America.
I do have an agenda. One that I have studied for years, proper understanding of ALL of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You mean, one that was created by a racist society to prevent slaves from killing their colonialist oppressors? No one is trying to take away all guns. The government already gets to decide who can legally possess a gun.
Also the 3rd, although the 3rd really hasn't been tested in court. However, it is a little bit of a stretch to extend a protection against unreasonable search and seizure to a protection of general privacy.
I agree, to an extent.
This was hotly debated post constitution / pre Bill of Rights. Many thought it would take away from the natural rights if you codified some but not "all". (and look where we are now).
Just I don't think it is a second amendment violation to disallow firearms in schools, I also do not believe it's a forth amendment violation to disallow certain items. Do you feel it would be a rights violation to say no one can bring backpacks into the school?
Minors don't have the rights afforded to adults, so the easy answer is that no it is not a rights violation because they are minors.
I don't really know, though. I'm not an expert on the 4th Amendment. My thought is that the examples you mention are indeed violations of those amendments.
My stance softens quite a bit when on public or other's property. I feel you have absolute rights at you home (ie, full auto, sbr, surpressor, etc). But when you step into public I bit of those rights are waived as a member of society.
(not looking to change your mind, just explaining my stance)
Yes, but it doesn't apply to a general protection of privacy.
HIPAA, for example, is an attempt at enacting a generalized protect for medical data. However, I believe we have a generalized right to privacy which is largely unrecognized at the moment.
Now in the specific case of schools, the students are minors and I suppose one could attempt to make an argument that this gives some excuse for infringing on their right to privacy.
But generally speaking, mandating public inspection of your personal effects seems to me to be an infringement of the right of protection against unreasonable search.
Oh but trust me it is so much more annoying when your kid has the opposite political beliefs that you do, haha. Your kid probably looks up to you and wants to emulate you, that's a good thing.
Oh I do. And it's hard. Today I challenged him to define militia, regulate, and "the people".
This is exactly why I argue with those that oppose me. To strengthen my counters to him. I know I'll never change an adults mind, but I can try to allow my son to know his beliefs are beliefs and no body truly has the best answer on anything thing.
Of what? Pictures of people advocating for banning all guns? Sure, I'm sure that you will find some, but many and most (from what I could tell) people at the March were responsible gun owners themselves that simply wanted to make sure that loopholes did not exist. Which students were advocating for banning all guns? What did Hogg suggest exactly that you felt indicated that?
There was a March put on by the DNC and corporate globalist media that used children to push for the rights of Americans to be taken away. In the past, people used to march AGAINST the government FOR rights. Now, people march FOR the government AGAINST rights.
The right to bear arms has already been infringed upon. Look at the laundry list of weapons you can't purchase. Most people agree that it's a good thing those weapons are banned. Whats so different about moving the line a bit farther?
Prevent more dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of mentally unstable people in a society fueled by propaganda and fear, as well as the NRA that profits from crime.
Don't worry... I choose not to own a gun because I am a vegetarian and am not scared of everyone, but I support people's rights to own them within reason (restrictions on automatics/semis) and stricter background checks.
Well for starters more kids would be alive at Parkland High School. Ultimately we'll never know how much good it will do. You can't count things that didn't happen. 15-100(?) People die in mass shootings by rifles every year. Where do you draw the line? How many people need to die before you consider it important? It may be inconsequential to the vast majority of Americans, but to those unlucky few it means everything. So yes, I consider those 15-100 people's right to not get shot by a rifle more important than your "right" to own a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine.
Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop every shooting. Violence will continue with or without guns. That doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent it.
more kids would be alive at Parkland High School
Why? It doesn't make much different if you use a 9mm vs a 7.62 against unarmed civilians.
And changing mags takes seconds. Besides, one can always hack it since it's a really simple design.
That doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent it.
So you are imposing a restriction on everybody while knowing that it won't make any difference.
Can't you instead go for a solution that could have a positive effect? Like banning all guns to the mentally ill and ppl who had social problems?
Of course you can't, because you really only care to smear the Trump administration and cancer the right to bear arms for everyone!
And the same on background checks for buying weapons.
But banning an entire set of weapons that have been around since WWII is stupidly idiotic.
Same for bumpstocks (which are toys for kids, no use whatsoever).
Oh, and all of a sudden, YT and Reddit banning weapons from their content is also fascist and useless, other than ruining a dying platform even more.
Do you know how many people attended the March, and do you have video/photo proof of these 100s of signs advocating for eliminating the 2nd amendment entirely?
It doesn't really matter whether the OP agrees with the kids protesting or not agreeing. In fact, he doesn't even mention if he agrees or disagrees with them.
He is simply pointing out that exploiting children for political purposes is fucked up.
If a series of events selectively, exclusively, repeatably affects kids, it's hard to talk about those events without bringing the kids into the conversation. It'd be cool if they weren't being murdered at school, though.
Maybe if the 13k yearly gun homicides in the US stayed out of schools we could just continue to not think about something so unpleasant.
Indeed. OP’s articulate, subtle, and well-reasoned political commentary is as intelligent and provocative as it is relevant to this sub. Which is to say: not at all.
Because I like hearing about and exploring various theories about secret, sometimes harmful, sometimes entertaining, often serious activities that impact our lives and societies.
Just because I think gun owners (like me) should be subject to the same kinds of regulations as pilots and others who operate dangerous machinery—and just because I like credible evidence underpinning conspiracies I put any stock in—doesn’t mean I don’t have a place on this sub.
Not interested in entertaining the pretty obvious propaganda going on in the form of using children to beat the drum of stripping citizens’ rights though.
"pretty obvious" is an opinion. If you present me with some solid evidence supporting your assertion, I would be happy to do so. Nothing I've seen thus far has been very convincing--based on what I've seen, my sense is that increased regulation of firearms is a goal shared by many American teenagers, and that those teenagers are allying themselves with likeminded adults, and thus a loose "movement" in support of that goal has emerged.
It is 1000% backed by proponents of firearms regulation, and not even "behind the scenes". Some kids got fired up about this issue after seeing their friends get killed, the issue resonated with some other kinds (including some who probably just wanted to skip class--but not all), and then some likeminded adults joined up with them and lent them resources and a platform. No conspiracy there, and nothing wrong with it. No movement starts or grows in a vacuum.
The kids we're hearing from didn't see anyone die. The kids who did but who don't have the "politically correct" opinion have been silenced and/or ignored by MSM.
It's blatantly obvious to any unbiased individual (which I am, whether you feel I sound like it or not – I'm a bleeding heart liberal who has never even shot a gun and didn't know what AR stood for until last year) that these kids are being used to further a political agenda.
I have no doubt they believe what they say. And I do believe every person should have a platform to espouse their beliefs. But these kids have been cherrypicked by those who have the most to gain from a political fight on the 2nd Amendment.
Is this a conversation our country needs to have?
Sure. Of course. But it's disingenuous to pretend like these kids are up there just speaking from the heart. They are being coached. They are being groomed. They and their political handlers are capitalizing on a tragedy that is more personal to others than it is to them in order to further a political agenda.
This isn't a conversation. They aren't listening to anyone. They are intentionally shutting down the conversation by using children to speak for them.
Hell, there are people on the other side at that DC march holding up signs in disagreement (vulgar though they may be) and they are being publicly targeted and shamed with the intention of SHUTTING DOWN ALL DISCOURSE.
The message is blatantly clear: "Fall in line or get ran over."
Struck a nerve because his comment is stupid and not well thought out. Children are a part of this nation and should be considered since they are directly affected by many laws.
Times have changed, indeed. I remember as a kid in elementary school & middle school the only thing we had to worry about was the occasional bully thumping our ears and the only drills were for tornadoes. That was a little over 20 years ago for me.
Over 20 years ago, you caught the sweep spot after having to hide under your desk for nuclear attack drills during the Cold War but before having to hide under your desk for active shooter drills.
I graduated high school in 2001, I caught most of that time frame as well.
Dec 2012 Sandy Hoax?
Feb 14, 2018 Parkland (movie mockery) shooting and ~300 other school shootings only in USA?
Hollywood & Gov tycoons using kids ongoingly?
Perpetual War ON kids
This a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
I think for some, they feel it’s okay to criticize them because they are overstating their experience of the shooting. For example, David Hogg was in no danger at any point and you can tell this from his videos during the shooting.
He was in a separate building. He clearly exemplified no fear or unease.
Even as the shooting was still happening, he was capitalizing on it as a journalistic opportunity to create a foothold for himself.
Which he is still doing.
Maybe some were directly in the line of fire and can be considered heroes or heroic survivors.
Right? It's just like all those phony 9/11 'victims' who were in no immediate danger during the attack but who still claim to be 'scarred' by the experience. So what if you live in the same city? If you weren't breathing the ashes of the dead you're obviously fine!
Running from a crumbling 100-story building and washing ash off your clothes and body is the same as interviewing students in a separate building while pushing your own politics?
I'm talking about folks who lived in New York but were nowhere near the attack. Some of them shot video at the time, too. Would you tell those people that they had no right to feel disturbed? Or to express their opinions of the attack politically?
This idea that you can't be legitimately affected by an event unless you were at ground zero and/or crying in the fetal position is weak nonsense. Give it up.
It has nothing to do with not being legitimately affected by a tragedy. It has to do with taking advantage of that tragedy to benefit personally (like David Hogg) or using the victims of that tragedy to further a political agenda.
Would I criticize one of the New Yorkers you're referring to above for overstating their experience of 9/11? Yes, if they were using that overstated experience to further a political agenda.
Oh, you were at the school where the shooting took place? And some of your classmates died? Psh. Talk to me when the shooter sprays someone's brains across your face, loser.
Agree. Is it really so scary to realize that the human beings who will take over the planet after you are dead and gone are going to radically alter it to the point where the threat of violence will not be the leverage upon which social interaction is based? Apparently it is for some.
I agree if this is talking about the protests in the USA about gun violence. I was politically active from the age of 14 as my government had been meddling with student finance. I was kettled by the police back in 2010 when I was 15. I learned at this age that my government does not care for me and that society will not stand up, only for themselves. As austerity has dragged on in Britain, as the first canaries in the coal mine, everyone is still complacent to the neoliberal disaster which is happening.
Children can be political, (12-18), don't doubt this for a second. My parents opposed me protesting but I lied to them so I was let out. Young people are capable of critical thinking and as adults we need to nurture it, not insult their capabilities.
The really outrageous use of children is in war propaganda, e.g. Naimyirah Testimony, Alan KurdiOmran, Boy of Aleppo to say the least. They get used to justify actions which causes suffering to 100'000's + children that do not get photographed, just called "collateral damage" for western interests.
This a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
I was gonna debate you, but you called out military pieces of shit, and said only crazy people would vaccinate their kids, so you are on some next level weirdness. Please don't reproduce.
Back in the day when everyone was worried about FEMA camps and marshal law the one thing that made me know everything would be okay is that our military is made up of people who live here and have family and friends here.
They would never do something to their own country that they wouldn't do to themselves, their family, and their closest friends.
Shame your ideological views can't withstand that difference of opinion. One would think a 'woke' sub would be able to handle differing ideas without all the constant whining.
Hate to break it to you but this is supposed to be a goddamn conspiracy forum not a toe the official line like a brain dead simp forum jesus this place is a fucking shambles
This is a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
Really? Millions of kids organized the largest protest in history with no outside influence from adults? Wonder where they got the millions of dollars for transportation. Was there a go fund me page somewhere?
As you were typing "with no outside influence from adults?" was there a moment where you paused and thought, "as far as strawman arguments go, this one might be a little bit too obvious, I mean I'm 100% putting words in his mouth, maybe I shouldn't say this" or are you just cynical enough for that to not even register with you anymore?
Are you not sick of hearing near weekly about crazy people with excessive firepower killing innocent people? That is a bad thing, right?
Are you doing anything to change that, or in some small fashion make it happen less?
Some people are.
Yes they are- the law for the vast vast isn’t some switch where you’re either a “super good law dude” or a “baddy Wild West outlaw”. Some folks speed. Some folks speed and smoke pot. Some folks follow the letter of the law except commit massive securities fraud. Some folks follow the law but one time get into a heated fucking argument and at that particular moment grab for the most deadly weapon available. Clearly laws often work as a deterrent, even to people who may otherwise break other laws.
Do you honestly believe Americans have political power in their system greater than literally every other country on earth, and that power is perfectly commensurate to total number/availability of guns? Would you have any data to back up this hypothesis?
Do you honestly believe Americans have political power in their system greater than literally every other country on earth, and that power is perfectly commensurate to total number/availability of guns?
Certainly not, and that's not what I said. I said that "Everyman" is going to lose their political power if they are serious about disarming. I stand by that statement.
Would you have any data to back up this hypothesis?
How about: we're the oldest continuous democratic government on the planet? A threat of armed revolt is an excellent way to keep government in line, thus we haven't needed to revolt.
sounds like another issue that needs to be fixed. These things dont have to be one or the other. dividing everything like that is why its so difficult to fix anything
That would be bad if it happened, but so far it hasn't been a problem in those states which allow teachers to carry firearms. So I don't know why it would suddenly become a problem when it has not been a problem thus far.
Dude, there was a guy teaching gun safety to his class who shot one of the students like last week or the week before.
Solving gun violence in schools isn't going to be accomplished by throwing more guns at the problem, just like eating more peanuts isn't the solution to helping you when you have an allergic reaction to peanuts.
Yes, and they were completely different to the one's I have now as an adult.
'Don't want my friends and I to get shot at' isn't a belief that requires a lot of political intelligence or nuance to hold. I give that one solid odds of reaching adulthood unchanged.
That's okay sometimes, you know. If I were to say 'I don't want to get murdered by a serial killer' nobody would stop me to ask if I've considered what the serial killers want.
Why is it that whenever comments veer too far away from right-wing talking points, moderators have to step in to "help" steer it back into being an echo chamber?
u/axolotl_peyotl literally bans users for talking about the Russia investigation. He usually deletes threads or puts them into contest mode when people in the sub are expressing wrongthink (non alt-right talking points).
If you really can’t see how obvious it is I can’t help you. Conspiracy never used to have mainstream media, pro government pro authoritarian top comments like it does now. This is r/conspiracy not r/politics or r/The_Donald. Pro government shit does not belong here, neither does the stupid one party is better dribble that’s spread here.
You still didn't address the point. Just because there are people here who disagree with your views on the government doesn't mean a "coordinated brigading effort" is underway.
If somebody believes in the conspiracy theory that George Bush did 9/11, but they are happy with the gun control and public healthcare system in their country, where are they supposed to go? If somebody believes there's an internal right wing conspiracy to dismantle public welfare systems in an effort to create a permanently wage-slavery-dependent population, where should they go? Or are conspiracy theories only for right wingers?
Conspiracy theories are here for anyone willing to believe in conspiracies. Regardless of political belief, pushing pro government rhetoric should be highly frowned upon. Not my fault those on the far left push pro establishment views when it comes to gun control.
pushing pro government rhetoric should be highly frowned upon
This is what the right wing believes. This is not the view of 100% of people who believe in conspiracy theories.
People on the left believe that bad people have done bad things while in government offices, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a government. You can't claim that people who are into conspiracy theories should be anti-government and that conspiracy theories aren't just for right wingers, because those are two contradictory ideas.
You don’t have to be completely anti government. I just find it ridiculous the people in a conspiracy forum pushing for more government regulation and control. Like that hasn’t gone wrong before.
Also the narrative in r/conspiracy was never this pro establishment government. The amount of r/politics users here is even more obvious then when the influx of TD users came in 2016.
What about if the agenda is good? Or at least providing a solid foundation to which the children can learn, nurture their own minds, in comfort and safety?
Children are not fit to decide on their own about everything. Having an opinion and having power to change are two entirely different things. They have not seen the world and have no life experience. Much of their knowledge is what they are told and learn from others. They are prone to false impression and at young age are fighting to find their own ideology and standards. Let children be children and leave decisions to adults.
Life lived long enough to experience majority of situations that one can face in a society.
Children do not understand what socio-political issues made specific laws as they are. They are not educated enough by life. Let children be children who are guided into right paths by mature adults guided by elderly who collectively have faced enough to share their wisdom. That is why even in primitive societies elderly were held in high regards and consulted in serious matters.
Taking away guns will not solve anything. It's not like countries where guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen. It's a socio-cultural problem. You take away guns knife will take its place. Guns from black market will surface. Cars,trucks and bombs will be used. Deranged people will make use of anything if they want to harm.
It's not like countries where guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen.
Point 1: That is in fact exactly what happens in other countries, any collection of data will show the huge difference in gun deaths between the US and other deveolped nations.
Point 2: "Guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen." Seriously did you even GO to school?
These are comments made by you.
On some people shaming tactics don't work. I have been on this sub long enough to see third class people like you weekly for years.
Get a life and if possible few friends also. It will help with your loneliness and may cool you. You don't like my comments downvote and move on but don't indulge like a petty bastard.
What is this bullshit? Laws and societal norms were made to enrich the elite at the expense of the commoner. A lot of the conspiracy theories that get bandied about today, many of us figured out in high school. I knew that the Fed controlling our cash flow without our currency being backed by anything but fairy dust was going to be a bad deal. We did a research project that basically proved that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't just acting as a lone wolf back in 2002 for high school. Hell, some adults are flat idiots. You don't get an honor of distinction just for being old.
. They are not educated enough by life. Let children be children who are guided into right paths by mature adults guided by elderly who collectively have faced enough to share their wisdom.
So much of this is completely subjective though. There's countless examples of the pitfalls and shortcomings of societies being guided by "mature adults" whose life experience has made them cynical or callous or uncaring.
Taking away guns will not solve anything. It's not like countries where guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen. It's a socio-cultural problem. You take away guns knife will take its place. Guns from black market will surface. Cars,trucks and bombs will be used. Deranged people will make use of anything if they want to harm.
I agree it's a socio-cultural problem. It's so socio-cultural that we can't even discuss it apparently - any attempts at even restrictions of guns are blocked out by a variety of tactics, including saying "why bother doing anything at all, people will still die regardless", which entitely misses the point, intentionally I believe. Be it at the public discourse level or at the political decision making level (where research into gun violence has been blocked for decades). The right has effectively made any discussion on guns a non-starter for years
some adults never leave the state they grew up in. Is this life experience? Should they not be allowed to vote because they lack 'real' life experience
You do realise that the children you call "prone to false impression" and who should "leave decisions to adults" are allowed to buy guns in many states?
Children under 18 can own gun but not without their parents agreement. If you fail to recognize a simple fact that guns don't kill but people kill people then you are impervious.
Just gonna quote an earlier comment because the work has been done for me:
Just checked, it does vary and most states require >18+ unless you're an exception. Rural Minnesota sells >to 14+ without parental consent, then in 5 other >states you are able to buy a gun at 16+, 4 of them >allowing you to buy rifles.
It's not that these children are going to have a direct say in gun law, they will have to wait til they're 18 to vote on any issue. It's that they are inspiring talk and debate on a topic in which they are very heavily involved in. Some people have a problem with this, and I really don't see why.
For me it's mostly that every adult knows they were idiots when they were younger. I'm fine with letting them do their own thing as an after school hobby. I'm not ok with the media clearly picking sides to push their own agenda. Especially when these same outlets will be calling kids clueless idiots the moment the next time pod fiasco begins or they start talking about subjects they don't want heard.
What about inner city schools that are violent and disruptive to what you just stated? Or are those just glossed over because they're not high-profile enough?
I live in a bad neighborhood. My male roommate was gone all weekend. You bet we have guns, and not for no reason. We've had people come up on our property threatening us just because we tell their kids to stop throwing things at our dog. We look out our back window into the alley and see people having sex in their cars, using that space to drop off/strip stolen cars, do drugs, etc.
Sorry, but the laws on the books need to be enforced and kids in schools that are disruptive need to be disciplined, not coddled because they're the wrong skin color and their parents will sue the schools for racism.
Did the person you’re responding to say you shouldn’t have any guns or did they literally propose the vague concept that there is a universe in which kids protesting can be reasonable?
Impressive how you can use "literally" to qualify a "vague concept" (subjective) that is supposedly "universal" (subjective) and, of course, "reasonable" (subjective) so as to discount my LITERAL RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS which is REASONABLE seeing as how the SECOND amendment guarantees the FIRST, being among the TEN amendments we call the BILL OF RIGHTS which does not GRANT rights, it PROTECTS our rights from the Government's interference.
It’s insane how much the media has used these kids to push an agenda for more gun control. First articles advocating for being able to vote at 16 years old, now this. I’d bet not one of these kids would have the smarts to articulate how we should go about gun control.
Seriously, can't they just accept that we'd rather continue to leave their lives in the balance than make our most powerful weapons more difficult to obtain like every other first world country...?
More people die from handguns than rifles. This is how the government works they chip a little bit slowly. First it’s a magazine ban then it’s an “assault rifle” ban. Pretty soon “semi automatic weapon ban” and wouldn’t you know it pistols are semi automatic! That’s a scary word let’s ban them too!
Protesters consider these measures insufficient. “When you give us an inch, that bump stocks ban, we will take a mile,” said student Delaney Tarr. “We are not here for breadcrumbs, we are here to lead.”
That's not proof that it is true, it is proof that some people will push for more.
Almost universally, you can find people who will push for more, so this means we can use that argument to oppose almost any change. It's a fallacy used to avoid actual meaningful debate on what changes are appropriate.
It is proof that the sea of those demanding an inch are chanting for a mile as well. So who do we listen to? Who do we trust? Why should we give an inch if a mile is already being discussed openly?
Stop viewing it as "giving an inch" and start viewing it as "let's talk about what's best for the country." it's not about "listening" to anyone about how far they want to go, it is about listening to and judging the merits of an argument.
"They want more!" is not a good argument against "this gun control measure."
We're letting you talk and some of your own are revealing their true intention of taking a fucking mile. Either acknowledge it or don't but facts are facts and that is a fucking fact.
I've repeatedly acknowledge that people will push for more. I've just repeatedly pointed out that what people push for is not an argument against what we should do. What more do you need me to do?
There are sides on this issue. Not because there should be but because one side is drawing a line (the protesters in DC made that very clear). You're on "their" side. I'm on the other (and I'm a non-gun-owning liberal lol).
It sucks that your side wants to start by banning bump stocks and use that as a means to banning many other weapons and (their hope) to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Sorry but hearing all of that nonsense means "my" side will stop listening. We gave you a chance. You blew it.
That's kind of a drawback of using children to speak for you.
I've said nothing about sides. I've explicitly, multiple times, said it is important to focus on the actual issue. You have, subsequently, put me on a side, then bitched about how that side has put you on another side. LOL. The hypocrisy is laughable.
You have latched onto a logical fallacy, put words into my mouth, pigeonholed me, hypocritical did exactly what you are whining about other people are doing, and then falsely accused me of having children speak for me. It's like you are pulling out every stop to avoid an actual debate. You just want to personal attack, because that is much easier than honestly looking at the situation and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
I mean, go ahead and state your argument if you want. But you did not come at me as if you wanted a one-on-one discussion on this issue. We're talking about a national debate... which has been stifled because we've been forced to pick sides and one side (the left) is attempting to silence the voice of the other.
And you are using the age old debate stifling tactic of labeling what appears to be an actual grass root campaign a conspiracy that involves one entire side of the political spectrum.
You aren't interested in the debate, you seem solely interested in forcing everyone onto a side and then just attacking the integrity of that side.
You know where you're looking right now? The center of the screen, right? Take those two beautiful dark pupils and aim them higher... keep going... almost there... now you got it! See? Right there at the top of the page? It says, "Fuck you if you use children to push your agenda."
Now, tell me again how I'm switching the debate...
Look at your first response to me. If you were so concerned about talking solely about using children to push the political agenda, why did you harp on and on about defending the slippery slope fallacy, until it was obvious you had lost that point, before effectively saying "well, this isn't about the topic at hand"?
I know it is harder to admit you were wrong on the point than it is to try and pretend you were actually talking about something else, but the only person you might fool here with that is you.
Go ahead and tell me how the fuck I “lost the slipper slope argument.” Wtf are you talking about? I’ve granted you the opportunity numerous times to state your argument if that’s what you wish to do. But I’ve never admitted to whatever imaginary loss you’re dreaming up. You just wanna distract from the point of OP’s entire fucking post.
To clarify, I didn't mention banning assault rifles, I just think there should be more accountability for gun owners in general.
The US has a problem that no other developed country has, so I think there are some things we can learn from them to work on the way we approach ownership of weapons. We're not tasked with doing something new.
I don't think anyone can objectively look at our situation with full understanding and say that the current state of things is okay. Something has to happen, but a ban obviously isn't the solution.
Not sure, but it's shameful that everyone seems to have this figured out except us. Most important thing is to get leadership from both sides onboard with working toward something that is on par with the countries we would like to be more like.
I feel the same about healthcare - we essentially are able to leverage "second mover advantage" to emulate the most efficient systems that currently exist in the world. That or we can keep bringing up the same solutions that have been pitched endlessly for the last 50 years.
My biggest criticism of this country is that we're so convinced that we're superior to everyone in every way that we're unable to learn from anyone else or be inspired by other countries. To me that lack of inspiration is what's leading to overall decline.
We should start by actually enforcing the laws that we have on the books. LEOs aren't being held accountable for their failures in enforcing law, and in turn the conversation instead switches to gun control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a 16 year old own a gun in America? If they're responsible enough to own something as dangerous as a firearm, how are they not able to debate the legislation regarding it?
Just checked, it does vary and most states require 18+ unless you're an exception. Rural Minnesota sells to 14+ without parental consent, then in 5 other states you are able to buy a gun at 16+, 4 of them allowing you to buy rifles. Even if it's 18 and over, that's close enough to 16 that you should be allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
Why would you bet that? A teenager cannot be educated on an issue in which they’re passionate about? To degree in which it is a problem in America, gun violence isn’t rocket science. We have an ever loving shitload of guns, available to anybody who wants one and, remarkably, often that goes poorly. It’s a pretty good start to say strategically and intelligently lowering those numbers and availability would help- as it does literally everywhere on planet earth.
What about conservative Christians and pro lifers using their toddlers who don't even know their abc's yet to hold hateful signs at clinics it other points of protest? Because I kind of think they have been using children to push an agenda for a bit longer
Anyone. My 8 year old self had no business holding a sign protesting an issue I could not possibly understand. This post is not about teenagers, it is about adults who use them for their innocence.
Are you expecting these "cowards" to debate the children being forced to protest and carry signs that their Mommy made for them? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the real cowards here are the parents.
Yes, my source is common sense. What is your source that says these kids are protesting by their own free-will? Do you really think those kids stopped buying Tide-pods long enough to pay for all those buses to get them there?
This is typical of the Left to require a source like the NYTimes to tell them exact what & how to think instead of using their own common sense. I said, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" but I guess it does takes someone with an IQ higher than a Leftist. Apparently.
I have lots of proof that Neo-Liberal Hillary-supporters, still grieving over the biggest Presidential upset in history, are incapable of thinking for themselves without the some "source" like the NYTimes telling how to think. Just look ITT.
The problem is pretty simple.. You say "I thought critically and I come to conclusion A" someone else say "I thought critically and came to conclusion B".. Who's right? This is why sources matter.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking for yourself, but to think all sources are the NYTimes is idiotic.
I've read the Federalist papers. Obviously you, and your child leaders, haven't. That's why you need some journalist to tell you what to think. Try doing you own research, think for yourself, even if it's just one time.
I personally know parents whose children insisted their family goes to this march. I don't know why you think everybody that disagrees with you were "brainwashed"
Yass, we should all listen to the children tell us which constitution rights we should throw away. And we should definitely not listen to President Drumpf because he's inexperienced! WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!!?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't say we should blindly listen to children. I just disagree with your opinion that everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed. That isn't how you encourage healthy debate.
I support a strong gun debate. I support marches like these. I don't support a platform built on children that these politicians and Hollywood actors don't actually respect int he slightest but are simply using for political gain.
"How dare you protest these poor innocent children."
I don't support a political platform built on children that these politicians and Hollywood actors don't actually respect in the slightest but are simply using for political capital.
okay, so this is the talking point among right-wing reactionaries, yet what is the proof? also, i think it's a little delusional to claim that these protests are part of some grand hollywood scheme to outlaw guns. like, if you take 1 second to look at the organizer's platform, you can see its pretty watered down, centerist bs.
also, why does their matter? and who is saying its a gold standard? like, these teenagers are protesting something they feel passionately about and all people can say is basically "shut up you're too young to know anything" honestly, if you want some kind of real change to happen, it needs to be cohesive, and obviously middle-aged dolts are supper reactionary. your cynicism is saddening.
Just because it's the reality doesn't exactly make it a talking point. This is a conclusion I came to on my own as did many others. If these politicians want to attack the 2nd amendment, grow some balls and go after it. They won't though, because it's political suicide. But you know what isn't? Giving teenagers a pat on the back for doing just that. It's so transparent it's sickening.
It's the 'gold standard' because it's how the left is able to attack guns while more or less keeping their hands clean. They aren't attacking guns, they're supporting kids! I don't want them to shut up, I want the media to stop putting them on a pedestal when just 2 months go they were worried they were going to commit genocide with tide pods.
you keep talking about them "attacking" the 2nd amendment. how long are you guys gonna keep banging that drum for? in what world has the government, since sandy hook and even before, done ANYTHING to guns? this gun-owner victim fetish is ridiculous because in the real world, nothing is happening.
teenagers, and let's not forget millions of other adults, are protesting to stop the deaths of other kids and other americans, and yet all you people can do is say "THE HOLLYWEIRD ELITES ARE USING THEM AS PAWNS! BAHHH THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUUNSS! IM SERIOUS THIS TIME!"
yet, nothing happens, and you keep playing right into the NRA's hands. you guys are so dense you can't even see how the NRA is exploiting your rambo cosplay fantasy towards their own end: making money and buying politicians.
get over your victim complex and see the reality: if these kids were protesting against gun control, you would be fine with it being kids and you'd see nothing wrong with it.
just admit that all the genuflecting is a long winded rant against something you don't like, not against the fact that they're "kids" -- tho i reject the idea that the age of someone discounts they're ability to have an individual opinion.
No my opinion would not change in the slightest. Kids are retards, I don't want the media putting them in front of any side an issue of this scale. Again, this is the same group of people the entire media chased for a straight month over fucking tide pods. You cannot in one breath warn every parent in the United States that their kids might eat a pod of laundry detergent and then in the following breath call that same group of people the most insightful generation.
For me this is less about the gun debate and more about how the media is yet again playing sides and changing narratives when it suits their goals.
Falsi uck you if you create meme magic bullshit to sew hatred against a kid and use that to push your agenda.
Photoshopping the constitution is lame enough but they squashed and contrasted her face, darkened her eyes and widened her nose. Subltoe enough that you wouldn't notice without the real pic. That's more than an anti gun control agenda.
Anyone who has spent any amount of time working with teenagers as an adult finds the idea of them being the intellectual or moral compass of our nation completely ridiculous. Teenagers are irrational, emotionally driven, and programmed through mass schooling to fall in line with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
Basically if you think that using teenagers to convince anyone besides other teenagers to change their minds on guns is a good strategy I have a beautiful ocean front property I'd love to sell you, here in Kansas.
As a teenager I was never interested in politics, so I admire the trend and hope it continues into their adult years.
I agree with you that teens are in many ways inferior to adults, but at the same time our current generation of teens are more well-informed than any generation before them.
With this being an issue that directly impacts many of them, I find that it makes sense for them to vocalize their opinions.
I don't feel like they're trying to change people's minds on guns. I feel like they're trying to direct attention toward this issue that loads of people are dying and nothing seems to be done about it, no matter how many times it happens.
I agree with you that teens are in many ways inferior to adults, but at the same time our current generation of teens are more well-informed than any generation before them.
What do you base this on? Don't just say the internet. Having access to the internet is not the same as being informed. Again, youthful exuberance and optimism is great, but the truth is mass schooling is indoctrination and programming. The further out you get from that indoctrination the more you will understand.
You don't agree that technology has helped enable us all, even teens, to become well informed? Some of the most profound things I know came from YouTube, Wikipedia, and Coursera.
It seems like you're saying that because violent incidents imply we should make changes you may not be in favor of, those incidents are a farce. Does that sound right?
No I did not say anything close to that. Also it takes time to find correct info on a tool like YouTube/internet at large (it is large).
Conspiracy theories are ignored precisely because there is so much utter shit out there. I do not think a 16 year old, or an 18 year old without proper guidance can find the truth because our schooling actively works against the development of reason.
The development of your ability to reason, and think critically for yourself is crucial to your ability to decipher truth from lies, emotional manipulation from sound rational evidence.
Until you have worked to develop your critical thinking skills (learned to think entirely for yourself) you like most everyone else will be unable to have even the most tenuous grasp on reality.
The truth remains that it is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Most people won't even look at anything that disagrees with their worldview, and those who do come only to mock that which they do not understand.
Yup. Pretty genius actually. Hide behind “oppressed groups” and you never have to defend your bullshit. Just call the opposition racist/sexist/homophobic and move on.
she needs to get the fuck out of america if she doesn't like the constitution. send her ass to mexico and she'll learn a few quick lessons about gun control.
totally sane not at all mad and reactionary response to people exercising their constitutional right to protest. you can't say you love the constitution while at the time same time condemning people for using rights protected in it. there are more amendments than the 2nd ICYMI.
Most people don’t realize how bad it is. You’re in a conspiracy forum so awareness is higher here. I think if the nation at large understood how many of our rights have already been infringed, they wouldn’t be so eager to support stripping the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is Freedom of Speech. We’re the only nation in the world that guarantees that right. Why? The 2nd Amendment.
Guess who all of these protesters are going to hide behind when the shit hits the fan?
The United States wrote the Japanese Constitution. It was enacted after we won the war.
Their “free speech” is going in the same direction as ours now. The state has been suppressing free speech and freedom of the press through press clubs that guarantee that the State is in control of the narrative.
The US also disarmed Japan. We even forced them to turn over their swords. They couldn’t even have a proper military until recently.
You want guns to overthrow the government but the government is the one that employs all the grunt style "operators". You're spinning so hard I have no idea what you're trying to say. Being a far right conservative must be fucking tiring when trying to weave through all these narratives.
this is such an insane and, again, reactionary reading of the consitution. like, honestly, you think some militia of fat dads LARPing as navy seals are gonna stop shit?
just admit you're mad online about kids saying something you don't like. stop trying to make it out like some grand intellectual point, not the grandpa yelling from his porch like it is.
The interesting ironic part about this tactic being used, along with the Nazi rhetoric is the use of politicalized children. Its a page directly out of the Nazi playbook. Welcome everyone to Hitler's Youth 2.0 (now with WiFi)
Do you honestly believe that these kids, with the support of some democrats, holding a rally devoted to a single issue, is the same as the Hitler Youth program?
Or do you just enjoy comparing things to Hitler, knowing that since you're doing it to left wingers nobody is going to mock you for it (like when right wingera mock liberals who compare Trump to Hitler?)
Any kid under 18 being used politically on either side is suspect since their being manipulated doesn't matter if its right, left or upside down. Kids don't belong being political side shows. Let them privately grieve and adults should do a better job of protecting them regardless of which side they are on.
But how else are we supposed to push extremely controversial, restrictive, and unconstitutional laws on the masses and limit their ability to protest, other than putting innocent children forward as our innocent and unchallengeable spokespeople?
Are you sure? Considering conspiracy people are usually pro keeping rights and critical of the government, there has been a suspiciously high traffic of pro 2nd amendment abolishers and pro government posts in here with the voting to go with it.
It is so serious you are afraid to give me your phone number. I appreciate the concern my friend, I really do, but you don't know me, I don't know you, and you would spend our time and efforts somewhere else.
Some are. Some aren't. Personally I have a great deal of respect for the folks who have a consistent pro-life stance: no death penalty, no abortion, no guns. (That is, I respect them even though I'm not one of them--I have more nuanced positions on each of those issues).
My niece and nephew marched. Unless they are cleverly hiding something from their uncle, the only agenda I saw was them wanting to feel safe in school. No one is using them. Their generation is finding their voice and they are learning to use it. I'm proud of them.
The fact that an organization stepped in to help, doesn't delegitimize their movement. They asked my sister to take time off of work and to take them to D.C. It was not her idea. It was not mine, it was theirs. She's a good parent, providing the resources for them to exercise the first Amendment rights.
What difference does it make who pulled the permit? If a high school football team is awesome and wins their game, do we say they don't deserve the credit and question their passion for the sport on the basis that adults built the stadium and paid for the lights to be turned on?
Dang, you're right. Just like those damn coaches, principals, and community leaders trot out their high school football teams in the fall (very suspicious timing if you ask me) when they want to bring pride, glory, and funding to their schools and communities. Now there's a conspiracy!
These kids are protesting the very object that they should rely on to defend their-selves and their liberty.
Millions of innocent people have died in the Iraq Afghanistan war, if they want to protest something, protest that.
Not the fucking object that was half the reason our forefathers fought a war over, the right to bare arms.
Of all the things to protest over, of course it would be something that has a 1 in a billion chance of happening to them, as long as they dont see dying people across the world, why would any of them every give a flying fuck it doesnt have a direct impact in their lives.
They want the gun loophole closed. As a gun own, I too want that closed.
That want to fix the NICS databases. As a hunter, I too want to see the system that was created to keep guns out of mentally unstable, actually do it job.
They want to raise age to buy guns to 21. If that's what their generation wants. If they find the poltical capiltal to make this a law. Have ait it.
You are forgetting what is actually written in our Constitutions.
** A well regulated Militia,**
No where does it say that it just be easy for mentally ill to buy guns
I can assure the average teen doesn't know anything about a "gun loophole" or NICS databases. Maybe they recognize the words now they hear the talking heads on TV repeat it over and over, but these are not things you discuss organically as a teenager. They are doing this because at this very moment, it is the "cool" thing to do. As I can recall from being one, teens do not have a good perspective on the long term, and have NO real understanding of what the long term repercussions may be for trying to alter a Constitutional Right.
Great username! Greetings from the UT Campus, where I'm sitting here furiously typing away on Reddit instead of preparing for the BLAW class I have to teach tomorrow :)
This is not about being "anti Second Amendment". It is about calling for regulations that are permitted within the context and scope of the Second Amendment.
So you just admitted those laws are already in place. Would you admit that if they restricted everything but muskets that would be a violation of the second amendment? An AR 15 is a semi automatic weapon. 90% or more of the weapons sold are semi automatic. The police do not use revolvers because long ago they were deemed insufficient. The new billHR 5087 bans lever action weapons!!! This is not gun control, it is an attack on the second amendment disguised as a " dangerous gun" ban.
I didn't "admit" anything; I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court has indicated that certain kinds of restrictions on gun ownership are Constitutional--meaning that some additional ones can be implemented without infringing on the rights articulated by the Second Amendment.
The "everything but muskets" thing is also resolved with a fair amount of finality in Heller, where Scalia sets forth the boundaries of the Second Amendment rights as it pertains to type of weapons permitted by the Constitution. In essence, he summarizes a long line of jurisprudence that says that the Second Amendment limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
So, no, I don't think a blanket ban on semi-automatic firearms would be constitutional (in point of fact, I am legally carrying a concealed semi-automatic handgun at this very moment).
So what's the difference with an AR 15. Exactly the same thing. Semi automatic no difference. Your handgun kills far more people every year but your fine with that. The Virginia school shooter used your weapon to kill 30. You need to give up your gun.
Literally nobody--other than you--has said a single thing about HR 5087.
My point is that there can and should be modest, Constitutional, and common-sense regulation of dangerous articles--that gun owner/operators should be subject to similar regulations as other participants in dangerous activities: training, background checks, registration, and limitations on the kinds of equipment non-professionals can have in their possession.
The current regulations in these areas--to the extent they exist at all--are a complete joke and must be strengthened. There are zero requirements for background checks or registration if I want to purchase a high-capacity, high-caliber semiautomatic rifle in a private transaction. My concealed carry license "training" and evaluations could have been passed by a Neanderthal. Better regulations and better implementation are imperative.
Au contraire, amigo. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is, by definition, the final and authoritative statement on what is and isn't "Constitutional".
From a legal system standpoint, sure. They are the top level of a hierarchy and that's it. They have no special ability of judgement and infact show a complete lack of it with a regular basis. It's almost like the ruling that police have no duty to protect is what started the latest gun control debate in the first place. Weird how that works.
They are certainly not perfect, but with the exception of Justice Thomas, they are all exceedingly intelligent people who have committed their entire adult lives to the study and analysis of extremely complex legal matters. So yeah, they do have a "special ability of judgment" which I respect even when I'm displeased with the outcome of cases that go before them (again, with the exception of Justice Thomas, who is about as intelligent and intellectually curious as a toad).
But even putting that aside, under our Constitution, their position at the top of the hierarchy set out by that document is of paramount importance: you can disagree with them all you want, but you have to abide with their rules or become an outlaw.
You are of course free to go live somewhere with lower levels of regulation around gun use and ownership, but I suspect you won't find the Central African Republic or Baghdad very hospitable, and Mars has proven really difficult to get to, so...for all practical purposes, the Supreme Court is the last word on the subject for you, brah.
It's funny how you argue rules of law yet your final arguement is "submit to force or die". Which really sums up what you and your cohorts are really about. Can't let that ounce of control slip away.
Do you find it weird or offputting that all those supreme court justices you seem to respect and admire all went to Harvard or Yale? Does it bother you that Yale and Harvard alumni are responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of millions? How good of a judgement do you have if you can't help but associate with subhuman murderers? I guess when it comes down to it the law only applies to the wealthy.
Where did I even remotely suggest that the only options are to "submit to force or die"? At most I said that you must submit to the law or become a criminal, which is of course an inescapable fact.
I don't really know where to start on your second point (to the extent there is a coherent point in that mishmash of words). But I'll try:
I will admit that I know a ton of people who went to Harvard and Yale, but to the best of my knowledge none of them has ever killed anyone.
I do think that I'd rather have the body responsible for interpreting the law be made up of people who have committed their lives to studying the law rather than random people off the streets. Even better if they were guided in that study by previous generations of smart people who committed their lives to the study of the law.
as to your final sentence, I agree 100% that the law applies to the wealthy, as you point out. But I would also argue that day-to-day life shows that it applies with equal force--if not more force--to the average or underprivileged.
It couldn't have anything to do with:
1)The police standing down, actively allowing the shooter to go on a spree.
2)The FBI stood down, the shooter was already known to the government as a potential threat.
3)Another SSRI-connected mass killing. The media can't talk about those because they are the largest paid advertisers and the politicians can't talk about them because they are some of the highest donors to campaigns.
Guns are the easy red-herring, to emasculate the population and to keep them under control.
All of the things you mentioned are potential contributing factors and should be examined. The lack of sensible regulation around gun ownership and use--not a "ban", mind you--is another factor.
Many people, including some kids, are pushing for that factor to be addressed because they feel strongly about it. Just as you are free to prioritize action around the other factors you described.
If anything, this argument around "emasculating the population" and keeping us under control is the real red herring in this debate. If the United States government, with its immense firepower, manpower, intelligence apparatus, wanted to take all of us gun owners out, they could do so in a heartbeat. No amount of armchair John Wayne "pew pew pew" with our pissant 1911s and AR-15s would stop the strongest military and law enforcement complex in the history of mankind.
The numbers don't work out in the establishment's favor. Only a couple million active soldiers versus 50 million gun owners, not even taking in to account that most of the military would refuse to take down their own citizenry.
Guns are the easiest right to attack because they have a "fear-factor" associated with them. If we willingly give away most of our 2nd amendment rights, how does that look when people want to start attacking our other constitutional rights?
Nobody is asking you to give away any Second Amendment rights (well, maybe some people are, but they're dumb).
Sensible people (a group I'd like to think I'm part of) simply want a limited measure of reasonable, modest, and constitutional regulations put in place to reduce harm from dangerous articles and activities.
What new legislation would prevent these types of disasters? We already have a whole slew of legislation that could have prevented the Parkland massacre that failed to protect the children.
Horse hockey. I've been on (and loved, and still love) this sub for years. I've said it before, and I'll say again until it starts to sink in: just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a shill.
Your opinion, while correct, is sadly very unpopular nowadays. It's just so much easier to claim people who disagree with you are "paid bots" or shills and just throw whatever noncoherent shit around without any explanation. Classic Reddit.
Just noting a new tactic seems to be claiming this sub is full of children and teenagers. Such lame insults too, similar to "jfc what are you 12 years old" "I don't respond to 14 year olds" etc.
Pretty lame but also pretty funny considering the people saying these insults are the same ones claiming these March For Our Lives children are brilliant and going to change the world...
It's pretty amusing that, in the end, they couldn't even get the college kids to fully buy their bullshit.
They had to drop down to grade school children who have no clue whatsoever how the world works; no clue that their government has been hijacked by murderous psychopaths who stage shootings & terrorist attacks to accelerate the conversion of the U.S. to a corporate police state.
No. You can only have an opinion if you're over the age of 18. The one exception is that if you are under 18 and get shot and killed; in that case you are permitted an opinion, but to date all such minors have been silent on the issue of gun control.
It’s protected under the Constitution as a result of equal protection not federally legalized. Huge difference. Before the Supreme Court made a decision states passed laws banning gay marriage and used the argument of “protect our children” to get those laws to pass.
That wouldn’t make sense to you if you weren’t paying attention to the issue.
I don't care if gay people get married, so no I wasn't paying attention. What I am curious about though is how something can be protected under the constitution but be illegal at the same time?
The Supreme Court had to specify that gay marriage was legal under the equal protection clause. There is no law or amendment that specifically says gay marriage is legal, there is the equal protection clause which says that all citizens must be treated equally under the law and have their rights to legal due process. So in the absence of legislation that specified gay marriage, states had the latitude to make laws. They passed those laws, they got challenged as unconstiutional since they treated gay citizens different than married citizens, and since marriage is a legal institution recognized by the state falls under legal due process. So denying gay citizens the right to marriage violated their equal protection and due process rights. The Supreme Court agreed those laws violated their rights as citizens and that rendered state and federal laws that sought to discriminate against gay citizens to be unconstitutional.
How is this even a relevant conspiracy post? No intelligent submission, just a profanity laden opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion yes, but so are the kids who are tired of being killed at school, which I can only assume is the reason for this post because you don’t even offer that much of an explanation. If you think that their participation in protests is a conspiracy lay out some solid facts and present them in a way that doesn’t ignore that 1 -teens are supposed to rebel against society, it’s what teens have always done, and 2- teens also express opinions for and against abortion, immigration laws, religious freedom, drug legalization etc etc etc.
It's pretty amusing that, in the end, they couldn't even get the college kids to fully buy their bullshit.
They had to drop down to grade school children who have no clue whatsoever how the world works; no clue that their government has been hijacked by murderous psychopaths who stage shootings & terrorist attacks to accelerate the conversion of the U.S. to a corporate police state.
Maybe uhh the children that escaped the massacre feel compelled to act. And uhh maybe they’re being misguided by organizations, but nonetheless these kids want to really change something. And I don’t think they really know what they want to change but ya know uhh banning guns is just the first thing people latch onto as a panacea.
Having children march in a pro-gender dysphoria parade should be criminal. Imagine taking your kids to a schizophrenia parade because you think it’s now the “in” thing.
Children are not fit to decide on their own about everything. Having an opinion and having power to change are two entirely different things. They have not seen the world and have no life experience. Much of their knowledge is what they are told and learn from others. They are prone to false impression and at young age are fighting to find their own ideology and standards. Let children be children and leave decisions to adults.
What about inner city schools that are violent and disruptive to what you just stated? Or are those just glossed over because they're not high-profile enough?
I live in a bad neighborhood. My male roommate was gone all weekend. You bet we have guns, and not for no reason. We've had people come up on our property threatening us just because we tell their kids to stop throwing things at our dog. We look out our back window into the alley and see people having sex in their cars, using that space to drop off/strip stolen cars, do drugs, etc.
Sorry, but the laws on the books need to be enforced and kids in schools that are disruptive need to be disciplined, not coddled because they're the wrong skin color and their parents will sue the schools for racism.
These are comments made by you.
On some people shaming tactics don't work. I have been on this sub long enough to see third class people like you weekly for years.
Get a life and if possible few friends also. It will help with your loneliness and may cool you. You don't like my comments downvote and move on but don't indulge like a petty bastard.
Most people don’t realize how bad it is. You’re in a conspiracy forum so awareness is higher here. I think if the nation at large understood how many of our rights have already been infringed, they wouldn’t be so eager to support stripping the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is Freedom of Speech. We’re the only nation in the world that guarantees that right. Why? The 2nd Amendment.
Guess who all of these protesters are going to hide behind when the shit hits the fan?
Would I criticize one of the New Yorkers you're referring to above for overstating their experience of 9/11? Yes, if they were using that overstated experience to further a political agenda.
I'm sure you'll show up and post the same response the next time somebody is criticizing democrats.
I will and regularly do. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then Trump and blue team for every other option in the general, weren't any third parties that I saw to choose from outside the presidential ticket. Trump sucked nuts and lied to us, not entirely surprisingly. It's not impossible he will still do something good, but I am not going to hold my breath.
I want candidates with integrity. That is part of the justification for me saying Trump sucked. He made it obvious he wasn't going to drain the swamp before he even swore in. Bernie Sanders is at least mostly consistent, harps on billionaires (who, imo, got us into this mess), and seems to have more integrity than any of the other options. Ron Paul is the only other presidential candidate I've ever seen with a measure of integrity.
If we had politicians who were held accountable for their actions and had integrity, the political process would be working. Alas, we do not, and the media on either side makes claims like "red team bad, blue team good!" and conversely "blue team bad, red team good!" dividing the population on imaginary lines when virtually everyone wants the same things, and virtually none of our politicians are even trying to get us those things.
Do you honestly believe that these kids, with the support of some democrats, holding a rally devoted to a single issue, is the same as the Hitler Youth program?
Or do you just enjoy comparing things to Hitler, knowing that since you're doing it to left wingers nobody is going to mock you for it (like when right wingera mock liberals who compare Trump to Hitler?)
Go ahead and tell me how the fuck I “lost the slipper slope argument.” Wtf are you talking about? I’ve granted you the opportunity numerous times to state your argument if that’s what you wish to do. But I’ve never admitted to whatever imaginary loss you’re dreaming up. You just wanna distract from the point of OP’s entire fucking post.
I didn't say we should blindly listen to children. I just disagree with your opinion that everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed. That isn't how you encourage healthy debate.
If you really can’t see how obvious it is I can’t help you. Conspiracy never used to have mainstream media, pro government pro authoritarian top comments like it does now. This is r/conspiracy not r/politics or r/The_Donald. Pro government shit does not belong here, neither does the stupid one party is better dribble that’s spread here.
681 comments
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
Remember, the inner party in 1984 used children.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Oh you mean like when people used fictional children being fictionally abused in a fictional secret chamber under a (admittedly real) pizza joint in DC to vilify a political party...right? Agreed. That was totally fucked up.
1 Lethr4life 2018-03-26
Wow... you posted it before it could type it. You have my upvote sir
1 frisbee_coach 2018-03-26
You’re equating being concerned about the human trafficking pandemic with physically using children to promote a pro authoritarian agenda.
1 Crows_and_Beef 2018-03-26
It's not "being concerned," it's weaponized accusations of pedophilia and human trafficking deployed for political reasons.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Notice how they always obsess over Satanic ritual child abuse? You wouldn't want them actually investigating their church officials now would you? You have to just trust in God. These people are here for your kids to make sure they don't turn gay or let an atheist teach them about science.
1 bootyaffair 2018-03-26
Nice reaching. It probably makes you feel better though.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Feel better about what?
1 bootyaffair 2018-03-26
What society is this? LMAO
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
It is called Christianity mostly, but a mix of Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.
1 bootyaffair 2018-03-26
Ah yes, the dwindling rate of Christianity and general apathetic religious beliefs if not outright atheism is really an oppressive force in the U.S society. Millennials & Gen Z are extremely left-leaning and non-religious or if a little, it's "spiritual but not religious".
What do you people get out of making shit up?
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
"Weponized", such a bullshit phrase.
1 Crows_and_Beef 2018-03-26
When I see words I don't like, I accuse those words of being pedophiles. Makes me feel better.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but this is the only time words have been weaponized.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I said nothing whatsoever about human trafficking or authoritarianism (I’m against both, by the way).
1 RugDaniels 2018-03-26
Of course your side is concerned with children. Granted, imaginary children but concerned nonetheless. The other side? The one that has made gun control a recent issue in response to children being killed in classrooms? Real children who are actually dead? They’re not really concerned with children. They’re pushing an agenda.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
What about the school shooting pandemic? Are we just going to let that one slide?
1 frisbee_coach 2018-03-26
http://irregulartimes.com/2012/12/17/school-shootings-are-less-likely-than-asteroid-hits/
Compared to
https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2018/01/11/human-trafficking-statistics-how-many-people-victims/1013877001/
https://humantraffickinghotline.org/what-human-trafficking/human-trafficking/victims
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393141
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
So just to be clear: you're OK with the frequency that loons with guns have been entering American schools and moving down children?
1 frisbee_coach 2018-03-26
Now you’re just trying to put words in my mouth. Just pointing out the numbers.
It’s pretty ironic that the left wants to ban guns, meanwhile thinks trump is hitler.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
So is it or is it not something worth trying to change? Yes or no?
Ah yes, let's all hold hands into the mud pit so we can sling shit at each other over "fascists" and "libtards". That's the way it's always been done and by God, we won't be breaking from tradition!
1 frisbee_coach 2018-03-26
The shortcomings by the mental health care system, local police and fbi can all certainly be addressed. School officals are encouraged to not cooperate with local police and to fluff disciplinary records to receive more federal funding.
I know you think you are morally superior for wanting to ban guns, but unless you call for a constitutional convention it’s not happing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
1 HelperBot_ 2018-03-26
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 164132
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
Please don't construct your own false narrative around my desires. I have not said anything about "wanting to ban guns". Not that I should have surprised, given the content of your last comment.
We agree there are shortcomings. So let's address them and try to get some real change.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
We need more people like you in r/conspiracy. Wish they would reflect on themselves and realize their hypocrisy. The latest trend in r/conspiracy is how Florida was a false flag and that these kids are just controlled opposition trying to take away guns away completely, but the Maryland shooting proves we need more guns in schools.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
That user is mocking others, not reflecting on themselves. Whoever wrote your code needs to tweak the sarcasm module a little bit. :/
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Why should they reflect when they made an excellent point at the hypocritical nature of the conservative right that is pushing agendas that these people should not be heard, that they are actors, etc.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
I can't make a better argument. Yes, why should they reflect? They're liberal and therefore correct and need not reflect. Obv. silly me.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
Red bad, blue good!
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
No... dogma bad, critical and free thought good.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
I'm sure you'll show up and post the same response the next time somebody is criticizing democrats.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
I will and regularly do. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then Trump and blue team for every other option in the general, weren't any third parties that I saw to choose from outside the presidential ticket. Trump sucked nuts and lied to us, not entirely surprisingly. It's not impossible he will still do something good, but I am not going to hold my breath.
I want candidates with integrity. That is part of the justification for me saying Trump sucked. He made it obvious he wasn't going to drain the swamp before he even swore in. Bernie Sanders is at least mostly consistent, harps on billionaires (who, imo, got us into this mess), and seems to have more integrity than any of the other options. Ron Paul is the only other presidential candidate I've ever seen with a measure of integrity.
If we had politicians who were held accountable for their actions and had integrity, the political process would be working. Alas, we do not, and the media on either side makes claims like "red team bad, blue team good!" and conversely "blue team bad, red team good!" dividing the population on imaginary lines when virtually everyone wants the same things, and virtually none of our politicians are even trying to get us those things.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
This isn't true, and depending on your beliefs one party definitely IS worse than the other. My parents don't want transgendered people to be able to use the same bathrooms as them, and I could not care less. Now, I would agree with you if you were to say that this issue was created by politicians as a ruse to keep people divided over shit that doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. I mean, those politicians artificially created this issue, but it was still created. There were actual laws passed. You can't say the party divide in America is pointless, because one party being in power makes different REAL things happen than when the other party is in power. It DOES matter.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
Both parties make the military industrial complex richer at the expense of the lives of civilians in countries all over the world, both parties want us to hate each other for things like skin color, sexual orientation, and various sky fairies who will either give us presents if we are good and coal if we are bad, and both parties want to keep us confused, dumb, and misinformed.
Your bathroom point is exactly what I'm talking about. It genuinely does not matter, but the media is making it into a big issue to divide us so we do not work together to topple the oppressors.
This is not to say that there are no politicians with good intentions. There absolutely are, on both sides, but the majority of politicians on both sides are coopted in one way or another to just maintain the status quo for the billionaire elite. There are Democrats who want to dial back on the military (though not many who vote that way consistently.) There are Republicans who believe that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and believe states rights should be preferred (though not many who vote that way consistently.)
I think even with abortion that people on both sides have some good points, I lean left, but I honestly couldn't care less while we're murdering people in the Middle East with bombs that were paid for by money we don't have at the expense of American taxpayers who don't want the bombs dropped in the first place.
It's figuratively a reality TV show and a sleight of hand to keep us distracted while they literally pick our pockets and murder innocent people all around the world.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
I think you're missing my point. The transgender bathroom stuff should NOT be an issue, it literally is a distraction from more important stuff, like you said. But, IT IS HAPPENING.
If somebody is robbing a bank, and then right as they leave the bank they toss a grenade over their should back into the bank, are you supposed to say "well that grenade is obviously just a distraction so that we don't call the police, I'm just going to ignore it even though it's about to explode in my face" ? Or do you overcome the grenade "obstacle" and then figure out how to stop the guys from doing it again?
The bathroom bill stuff is the same thing, it shouldn't have been made to happen, but these laws really were passed. And it affected the real lives of real people. What are we supposed to do, let those people suffer because their lives aren't the "real issues"?
Okay, so there's people fighting tribal wars over access to clean water right now. Should we ignore that so we can focus on the real issue of domestic surveillance? Or is domestic surveillance just a distraction from the real issue of perpetual warfare? Or is perpetual warfare the distraction from the real issue of central banking?
The media didn't make the bathroom stuff into an issue in order to divide people. People where already divided over it, and the media talked about it, for ratings, because they make money when people watch them. My parents wanted those kinds of laws before it was controversial. The media didn't give them that view.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
This appears artificial to me. A discomfort for a few people that was delicately nurtured into an intense hatred. As it became more common for people on TV to express this bigotry, others adopted the feeling.
No, this is all real. Artificially inflated poverty is exacerbating a lot of the contention over shit that doesn't matter because people think it's some power they can flex, and they think they will feel better if someone send lesser to them.
People had opinions about "deviants" and the media stirred that shit up for ratings and agenda shaping.
To be clear, I'm not trying to discount your perspective on how things are, but rather, I am explaining my perspective. Experience has led me to believe these things, but it's fluid, and as I learn more, I readjust.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I probably do need to reflect more in my personal life—don’t we all—but here I was simply pointing out how asinine and hypocritical the opponents of modest, Constitutional, common-sense gun control are.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Exactly what tenets of gun control are "modest," "Constitutional", or "common-sense"?
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Well, it depends on the proposals, of course. But my position is that gun owner/operators should be subject to similar regulations as other participants in dangerous activities--private pilots is the example I tend to point to, just because it's something I know a little about, but there are others. So, in a nutshell: training, background checks, registration, and limitations on the kinds of equipment non-professionals can have.
Such regulations are modest. They present a slight burden on those who wish to participate in an activity that presents a heightened danger to the public, but that burden is proportional to the potential for harm.
Such regulations are Constitutional. Justice Scalia's articulation of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller does an excellent job of interpreting the Constitutionality of firearms regulation. It acknowledges that the Second Amendment articulates an inherent and individual right of Americans to bear arms (and let's face it, anyone who argues otherwise is being pretty disingenuous). But Scalia famously goes on to acknowledge that this right, like most natural or Constitutional rights, is not unlimited: it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." It is not the right to carry "dangerous and unusual weapons". And the Court explicitly upheld the Constitutionality of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" (emphasis mine).
Such regulations are common sense. Most people would agree--that is, it is commonly held as sensible--that individual citizens should not be permitted to own and operate high-yield nuclear weapons. Most people would agree that the law should not permit someone like Khalid Shiekh Mohammad or Timothy McVeigh to walk the streets with a Barrett M82. So it is common sense that some kinds of regulations are called for. Where people start to disagree, where things start to get messy, is where to draw the line on those regulations. I would argue that my proposed regulations present the minimal level of regulation possible to ensure that the commonly-held concerns about criminals and nutcases having easy access to firearms and about private ownership of extremely dangerous weapons.
So, there you go. A framework for modest, Constitutional, and common-sense regulation of weapons.
1 digiorno 2018-03-26
In light of the high ranking pedos in the U.K., I feel like pizza gate hit a nerve with some powerful folk in America. But then I think it was completely co-opted and driven to the point where it seemed ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that the whole pizza parlor thing was probably not true. But there are almost certainly politicians who are pedophiles and I'm betting they're controlled by our intelligence agencies because that sort of leverage is unbeatable. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is why this conspiracy theory went from being seen as plausible to bat shit crazy in no time flat. After all, agent provocateurs are easy to enlist in online battles and if anyone knows how to tarnish an image it's the spooks.
1 Correctthereddit 2018-03-26
Absolutely. It was stunning how quickly anything related to PG other than the official "debunking" was censored, including the subreddit. That in itself was soo suspicious.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Maybe because no one ever posted proof but just posted propaganda videos about SRE.
1 jammerlappen 2018-03-26
Pizzagate was an attempt to construct some kind of conspiracy out of a bunch of emails that would otherwise be pretty boring. It was used as a political tool before an election.
Pretending that pizzagate was actually about general pedophiles in positions of power is an attempt to rewrite history. After it had run its course and went nowhere, people gradually changed the discussion to pedogate and pretended that critics of pizzagate where actually denying any pedophilic crimes instead of a made up email code.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Did you read the emails in question?
1 JoeyBulgaria 2018-03-26
Gonna edit in an old post I wrote about the “dominoes on pizza” email in a sec. it’s one of the go to examples of Pizzagate being a real thing big if you actually look into the Podesta emails you can see it’s innocuous
1 ganooosh 2018-03-26
That's not a very accurate portrayal of pizzagate. Hell, there wasn't even a basement!
Suffice to say that when a creepy looking dude who was going to be secretary of state? is being invited to take part in satanic rituals, some people get curious.
Most don't. Most people let people like stephen colbert tell them what pizzagate was by way of incorrectly rattling off various things about it and what it alleged.
But anyhow, why don't you go to your father John's house. I think the hot tub is all warmed up.
1 jammerlappen 2018-03-26
I think your comment was pretty badly written but to summarize what I got from it: Podesta had it coming anyways, the people who think Pizzagate is bullshit can’t think for themselves and I‘m a shill. I love that level of discussion.
1 ganooosh 2018-03-26
People can think pg is bs all they want. But when people say things are debunked when they're not, they lose a bit of credibility.
Same with the seth rich case. media outlets repeatedly say things like "debunked" but in reality nothing's debunked because the case isn't solved.
Imagine if Hillary won, and Podesta was among the most powerful people in the country, and then people found out he's getting invited to take part in satanic rituals. Or that his brother has an underground theater for viewing "sensitive" materials.
Alot of this is fun to talk about right now because so many people are hot for russia despite the lack of evidence, and many people are caught defending one thing while saying another equally questionable thing is ok.
1 jammerlappen 2018-03-26
Hey, I actually agree with you that calling it debunked is wrong. You can’t actually debunk that stuff.
I could claim the sentences you wrote summoned demons and there is no way you could debunk that. That’s why I call bullshit just bullshit.
But if you think a made up email code is better evidence than personal meetings of affiliated persons with Russian operatives and lies over lies about that topic I really think it’s a hopeless case.
1 ganooosh 2018-03-26
Look at us. You agreed on the internet... my god. headway.
"making up" email code is one of the fallacies of pg though. You can go google the cop that recently got arrested looking for cheese pizza on craigslist. I'm not even into pg per-se.
I agree that with many of the examples given for code, there are huge leaps. pizza isn't one of those leaps though, as it's been shown to have been around for a long time.
I don't see anybody recognizing the positives that came out of PG. It brought alot of attention to topics like human trafficking, online predators, cp.
But you know, it's just so easy to coopt things. Or ridicule something to the point that most people don't look further than a silly name.
1 jammerlappen 2018-03-26
You’re right with the pizza thing. That’s the word they used to start the thing. Then the rest followed as it fitted the story.
PG also definitely brought more attention to other thing in specific places on the internet, but everything involving kids has always been a huge scandal once it became public knowledge. The influence on the perception of the general public is pretty insignificant as far as I can see.
And while the name pizzagate does sound silly, the thing is in itself ridiculous when looking at how it developed. I don’t even want to call it a conspiracy theory, because I believe the original inventors knew exactly that they made something up for political reasons. I guess that’s my conspiracy theory regarding the whole thing.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Now this is a conspiracy theory that I can get on board with. Thank you for your sanity.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
Virtually everyone who followed the story in 2016 shares his point of view.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
The sense that I got--which is admittedly 100% anecdotal and based solely on opinions I saw puked up here on Reddit--was that that was not the case at all.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
It also wasn't targeted at Democrats, in particular. There's no way that a massive pedophilia ring would only be perpetuated by one party. It either doesn't exist (at that level of government, the existence of child prostitution isn't really questioned afaik) or it's a blackmail scheme for powerful figures regardless of political affiliation.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
The podesta emails and strange Instagram posts were very real even if the conclusions were overegged.
1 perfect_pickles 2018-03-26
CPP is perv city, judge by what music bands they host there, not to mention the Trump inauguration gas attack people planned their attack there (on video), they got off because friends of HRC, same as the 08 Denver assassins.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
I just wanted to stick to verifiable facts (of which the gas attack video is one, thanks).
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I’ll just repeat here what I’ve said elsewhere:
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
I fully agree with you about the podesta email codes.
The pictures on the Instagram however lead directly to conclusions of possible child abuse.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I don't recall the specifics of the Instagram stuff, although I do remember looking at them and not finding them convincing at the time.
If you have a second, and if you can send me a link (PM is fine), I'd be happy to review and re-evaluate. I like to try to keep an open mind, even when it comes to stuff I've already "made up my mind" on!
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
Go to the pizzagate sub of voat (reddit admins have banned direct links). They have a stickied post that summarizes the (circumstancial) evidence and has links to archives of the Instagram posts.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Thanks; another commenter linked me to a collection of Instagram posts by James Alefenatis, and while I think his sense of humor and taste in art are highly questionable, I don't see anything that rises to the level of a "smoking gun". To be honest, to me the fact that people see his (admittedly weird) posts and immediately jump to fabricating a sick, intricate, elaborate, and detailed fantasy about kids being molested raises more questions about the theory-makers than about Alefenatis (who again, I must stress, seems like a very odd and rather unpleasant character).
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
If the need for vengeance is ignored then I think pizzagate has actually achieved a goal.
Given the amount of exposure he's recieved, Alefanatis certainly isn't going to be able to do anything he's been accused of in the future. Too many eyes are on him.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Well that's just terribly twisted logic...by your reasoning, we should just accuse everyone we think is a little weird of horrible horrible crimes just in case they might someday consider committing those horrible crimes, and thereby prevent them from doing so. It's all bit too Orwellian and anti-Due Process for me.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
No, just the ones that have friends in high places, that the police refuse to investigate.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
So we should lay false accusations against all people with friends in high places? Or just those who have weird tastes in art? Or just those whose political opinions we disagree with?
(Sorry, I know you're not suggesting we do any of those things; I just think its an approach that could lead to some pretty scary places).
1 facereplacer3 2018-03-26
You're so right All those images and comments on Instagram and wikileaks have no strange things happening. Get the fuck outta here.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I read through all of them. They’re a bit odd, at times, and maybe reflect a secret understanding of some kind among the parties—a sort of “isoculture” of this particular group of powerful people.
But nowhere did I see any evidence pointing to pedophilia, much less pedophilia in a pizza restaurant.
Among friends, we all (well those of us who have friends, which I know excludes many pizzagate proponents) we all develop secret codes and terms that make their way into our communications. Sometimes these codes conceal serious or even illegal topics—marital infidelity, say, or recreational cocaine use.
So when you see someone using such a code, it’s natural to say “hmmm”. But to jump right to kiddie touching in a pizza joint with no further evidence takes a special kind of dumb and sick.
1 facereplacer3 2018-03-26
I tape children to tables for yucks all the time.
Fuck you.
1 asdf2100asd 2018-03-26
wow, look at this shit, 100+ upvotes to this, in r/conspiracy. wtf is going on with reddit.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-26
Shills and people with no critical thinking skills coming to this sub
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Right; people who disagree with your (in my opinion, baseless and absurd) conclusions are stupid shills. Got it.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
It’s r/conspiracy, not r/blindlyfollowharmfulandabsurdfictionwithnobasisinreality
1 Knowwhatimsayingg 2018-03-26
Pizzagate has legitimate circumstantial evidence that should be looked into. What is wrong with you people who want to just brush it away like it’s nothing. There’s far more evidence of pizzagate than Russian collusion lol
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I've reviewed the so-called "evidence" of pizzagate, and find it completely baseless.
I've reviewed the publicly available evidence of Russian interference in the US democratic process, and find it compelling. I also--cautiously and with a shaker full of salt--give weight to the conclusions drawn by 100% of our intelligence agencies based on non-public information they have access to.
1 Knowwhatimsayingg 2018-03-26
What about this email from Ms Luzzatto to John Podesta. A woman who is accused of pimping out her kids
https://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/11/05/wikileaks-email-shows-podesta-and-friends-had-hot-tub-parties-with-children/
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Huh? I've read that like 15 times now and I don't see where she is inviting people to fucking have sex with her fucking kids. Jesus. What is wrong with you people that you read kiddie-sex into every possible mention of a child?
1 Knowwhatimsayingg 2018-03-26
Her website has been deleted since the pizzagate stuff has been released I’ll try to find an archive
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Right on; again, I'm happy to examine new evidence (or at least new-to-me evidence) and re-evaluate my position on this whole thing. I've just never seen anything that convinces me that there's anything to these bizarre accusations, and extraordinary accusations call for extraordinary, or at least very convincing, evidence.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-03-26
wow these comments are totally organic
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Well, as the OP of this particular thread, I can only speak for myself, but yes, I’m a real person and not a shill. I own guns. I’m a mainline Protestant Christian.
I do my best to think critically about history and current events. And in doing so, I may come to very different conclusions than you—that doesn’t make me a “shill”. I suspect that is the case for many people who don’t agree with you.
Why can’t you accept the fact that many Americans believe in common sense gun regulation and don’t believe in fucking pizzagate?
1 Knowwhatimsayingg 2018-03-26
Oh you mean the pizza parlor owned by James Alefantis? The guy with these pictures on his Instagram
http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/12/pizzagate-comet-pizza-owner-james-alefantis-posted-hundreds-of-suspicious-instagram-pictures-like-these/
I wonder who are the ones that are actually ok with “using” kids
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
The guy's got weird taste in art, I'll give you that.
1 Knowwhatimsayingg 2018-03-26
Taping a girl to a table isn’t art it’s sick humor and should be looked into.
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
I agree. I really dislike when Republicans use an unborn fetus to push their agenda.
1 drwitchdoctor 2018-03-26
“Unborn fetus” is redundant, genius.
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
U rite. mb am dumb
was survived abortion, sry
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
That's too bad.
1 Buckfutter8D 2018-03-26
FINISH HIM
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
Nope. Kinda a sad statement from you. Quite vile.
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
You're just sad I'm funny and people like me.
1 RedditGottitGood 2018-03-26
So funny that your comment had to be removed?
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
My comment was removed?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
So which is it? A child, or an "unborn fetus"?
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
Call it whatever you want. The parents don't want it and you're not willing to shell out the time or money to raise that child yourself with every bit of care they would need from a real parent.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Idk what kind of vibe my comment gave off, but I'm not pro-abortion if it's some dumbass kid that didn't use protection and is too lazy to raise it. In other scenarios, sure.
1 SuperIceCreamCrash 2018-03-26
I'm very pro-abortion in that case. What kind of shitty life are you giving that kid if you're forcing the parent to have them?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Let a loving family adopt it then instead of killing it? Not a hard concept.
1 SuperIceCreamCrash 2018-03-26
Are there enough adopting families? The system feels a little overflowed
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
There's plenty of couples trying to adopt. Think of all the women unable to conceive for any number of reasons. All of the gay/lesbian couples looking to adopt. There's plenty of reasons for not being able to have a kid on your own.
1 JakeElwoodDim5th 2018-03-26
There's so much demand that there's a good change PP will keep that baby alive and sell it anyway. Adoption would not be a difficult route.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Exactly.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
So the orphanages are near empty and foster care is a well-oiled machine?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Nobody said that. It's a far from perfect system. But it's better than the alternative.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
How? Feeding more children into a system that is pretty far from perfect is better?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
You're right bud, just kill em all. Much better! :)))))
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
For a majority of the gestation, a fetus is not a person. You're not "killing" anyone.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
That’s not what the law says. Drunk drivers that kill expecting mothers get two counts of manslaughter.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
The law says abortions are legal, so why aren't all those doctors charged with murder?
1 SuperIceCreamCrash 2018-03-26
We don't even kill them once they've got brain activity. Its the equivalent of killing a tumor.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Doesn't change the fact that taxpayers still have to shell out money to have little thot Stacy suck the fetus out of her womb because she was too stupid to use protection. People are using abortion as a form of birth control and it's fucked up.
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
I'll pay for Stacy's abortion myself if it means not having to subsidize her child's expenses with taxes for the next 18 years. Your arguments are laughably bad.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
We wouldn't have to pay for the expenses if the kid went to a decent family that doesn't have to depend on taxpayer money to raise a child.
1 RedditGottitGood 2018-03-26
That’s the point - that’s a big if. Kids get lost on waiting lists andget shuffled from adoption lists to Foster homes all the time, and some of them are Never kept anywhere long before they turn 18. You’re speaking as if the system they go into has an even decent track record of success. This is not the case.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
We do that anyways. Public school, food stamps, subsidized health care.
1 SuperIceCreamCrash 2018-03-26
At what cost? $1000 so we don't pay the extra welfare and tax breaks later on?
Pretending people use abortion as birth control is nonsense. Besides it's the people that are too stupid to use protection that end up fucking up their kids. I wouldn't even trust them not to fuck up the pregnancy.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
Is it too late to abort you? I'd gladly pay 20 cents (double my share of Pp funding that would go to abortion services) to get a second opinion on that.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Lol someone's jimmies got rustled. Too much thinking for little Timmy for tonight I suppose.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
How much shock are you to learn that the average tax payer's cut to Pp abortion services like 10 cents? It took me about ten minutes to figure that out. But then again, I try not to look like a tool when I comment.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Would you be cool with that same amount coming from your pocket to fund the Nazi war effort or Hutu militia? It’s only ten cents
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
Was the Nazi angle really the best you could do?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
I just picked the first mass murderer that came to mind, because that’s what we’re talking about.
Think about the arguments. “They’re not fully developed.” Cool, so you wanna exterminate all the disabled people? “I can’t afford to give this baby a good life.” So you wanna kill the poor people? Even the rhetoric is exactly the same as the Nazis.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
We're discussing at what point it's a "people".
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Than killing them? Yes.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
I don't belive a fetus has developed to the point where it can be "killed" for most of the pregnancy. I'm not advocating later-term abortion.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
What needs to come in? The nose? The ears? The toenails? And if a baby is delivered without one or all of these body parts, or any one of them is deformed does that make that child not “developed” enough for life?
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
The ability to think, to feel pain or respond to stimulus - more than physical appearance.
Day one is an egg and a sperm... Would ending that be "killing" it, in your view? Day 270ish is a baby ready to be born. Somewhere in there is a line that starts to be crossed between person and hopefully cellular growth.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
As early as Week 3 the cells start dividing. (Which is a response to a stimulus btw.) If NASA discovered single, non-dividing cells on Mars tomorrow you know what the headline in the New York Times would read: “Life”
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
Response to stimulus was too broad a term for me to use.
If we destroyed those little Martian cells, would you call it murder?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Yes, unequivocally
1 Onpointson 2018-03-26
The system is feeding the pedophiles. Why do you think the pedophiles fight so hard against abortion? It depletes their resources of young children.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
No, but the solution you’re proposing is to just kill em instead?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
There’s more than enough. Pretty long waiting lists.
1 PM_me_killer_chess 2018-03-26
Adoption?
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
That's the last person you'd want having a kid. Why would you be anti-abortion in that case?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Give the damn kid to someone that actually wants it lmao. What is wrong with you people?
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
Are you under the impression that there is a shortage of kids up for adoption? Do you know know how many kids right now are without a good home? We don't need more kids in the foster care system. Why you think we do is beyond me.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Go back to r/gaybros lol
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
All but confirming you have nothing intelligent to say and that you're just a Bible thumper. Thanks for playing!
1 AutoModerator 2018-03-26
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.
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
That shouldn't be your decision nor your business TBH.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
It probably shouldn't be Antifa's business beating defenseless old men with bike locks, or throwing rocks at police and people they disagree with politically. Huh.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
I’m not Jewish and I’m not capable of becoming Jewish. Does that mean I can’t think the Holocaust was bad?
1 Zashak 2018-03-26
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
There’s adoption waiting lists out there with thousands of names on them
1 yourepenis 2018-03-26
Theres also more children waiting for adoption than there are names on a waiting list
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
So should we kill them too to save a quick buck?
1 yourepenis 2018-03-26
Weird i dont remember saying that?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Well that’s the argument right? No one is gonna foot the bill for these fetuses, so why not kill em?
1 RedditGottitGood 2018-03-26
No, the argument was in response to someone saying “BUT I DON’T WANT MUH TAXES GOING TOWARDS AN ABORTION, IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE,” followed by someone pointing out that if your worry over abortions is about Cost, a child floating around the foster system is a Far greater burden on the system financially. Anti-abortionists brought up costs first. Scroll up and see.
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
Fun fact abortion is a form of eugenics. Who advocated for eugenics?? Oh yeah...
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-03-26
which is paradoxical because it destroys a large number of their voter base
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Kind of reminds me how a certain party wants to keep illegal immigrants in this country for the votes.
1 JakeElwoodDim5th 2018-03-26
I'm Hispanic, my parents were lucky enough to get amnesty under Reagan and are now citizens... Even they understand this and vote against Dems...
1 RedditGottitGood 2018-03-26
Sorry you’re getting downvotes for no reason.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Astroturfers that can't have their precious party looking bad on le Reddit! Lmao.
1 Dougalishere 2018-03-26
and yet practising forms of Eugenics strengthens the gene pool and could make our species hardier to diseases and genetic disorders.
It's like when stem cell research was banned in the US and the UK because of dumb religious ethical arguments and scare tactics of "playing god" and "designer babies" I remember the scare articles in the paper from when I was really young ignoring the obvious medical benefits.
We are only now starting to see the benefits of stem cell research medically and I ask myself how far behind are we now because of that ban. It's like when sciences were banned by the RC church and Islam and put as in a one thousand year black hole all because they didn't want to lose their power. Imagine where we could be now if it wasn't for these corrupt institutions.
1 Dougalishere 2018-03-26
Loving the downvotes without any conversation :)
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Both.
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
I know I love eugenics too!
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
TIL "I can't give this child a good life" is a desirable heritable characteristic
1 WookerTBashington 2018-03-26
So you're saying they're children...
1 ConspiracyAccount 2018-03-26
Whataboutism. So many of those in this thread. Almost as if you're a dog trained to salivate at the dinner bell.
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
Whataboutism? What am I whatabouting?
OP issued a broad statement. I agreed and elaborated on a group that uses "children" to push an agenda.
As if children ever mattered at all. You guys know you can make more, right?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Well I’m about to do it:
“In Iceland, upward of 85 percent of pregnant women opt for the prenatal testing, which has produced a Down syndrome elimination rate approaching 100 percent. Agusta was one of only three Down syndrome babies born there in 2009. Iceland could have moved one-third of the way to its goal if only Agusta had been detected and eliminated. Agusta’s mother is glad the screening failed in her case.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-down-syndrome-problem-the-genocide/2018/03/14/3c4f8ab8-26ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
My brother has downs syndrome, and it sickens me that the right wing has taken to using people like him as a bludgeoning tool in the abortion debate.
Once somebody is born with downs syndrome, they should be able to lead a happy and as close to normal life as possible.
If they detect ANY significant birth defect well enough in advance, the parents shouldn't be expected to bring that pregnancy to term and create a person that will suffer from an affliction or a condition unnecessarily.
Using people that have already been born, that have downs syndrome, to evoke sympathy for potential people with downs syndrome, that haven't even been conceived or born yet, is disingenuous.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
I have a brother on the Spectrum and t sickens me to the core, and all but destroys my faith in humanity, that any quasi-reasonable person could argue that terminating a life is preferable to suffering any sort of condition. It’s absolutely disgusting, and not all that far removed from Hitler and his cronies wanting to kill people who “suffered” from the condition of being Jewish. What you’re arguing when you “detect it early and stamp it out” is eugenics, simple and plain.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Okay, instead of going around in circles in this conversation, let's agree that the thing we ACTUALLY disagree on is whether early abortion really is "terminating a life" or not.
Since you understand that I don't believe early abortion is "terminating a life", you can probably imagine that comparing me to Hitler and my beliefs to eugenics is a little bit of a non-starter.
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
I get that you don’t understand that, like people didn’t understand that the Earth wasn’t flat or that the Moon wasn’t made out of cheese.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Ah, so you're just insulting me now.
1 CoinSurfer1 2018-03-26
I mean, without Corky “Life Goes On” wouldn’t have been the show it was.
1 wildfireonvenus 2018-03-26
You mean, you have regrets?
1 Fuckyousantorum 2018-03-26
And “19 Kids and Counting.” Using your kids to push your religious doctrines. Sick.
1 SJWPussyLibtard 2018-03-26
Word. Until you see some kids protesting for something you agree with. Then they're young informed patriots.
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
Interesting whataboutism.
1 ConspiracyAccount 2018-03-26
That's all they ever have.
1 BlahNiggaBlah 2018-03-26
That's not whataboutism.
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Yup! cough March for lives cough
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
Nah, I cringe when I hear my kid regurgitate my political beliefs.
"Son, get informed and make up your own mind!!!" -me silently screaming to myself.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
So basically, anytime someone has an opinion that is younger than you.. you just assume that it has to be some political agenda and that they are just useful idiots? Many people should look at who the real useful idiots are, and it isn't these teens.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
I assume you are replying to the wrong comment.
But let's say you are not.... These kids are being used. Anyone that thinks they have a constitutional right to a backpack but doesn't understand the right to self defense is not useful in gun law debate.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
If they are old enough to fire a gun, they are old enough to have an opinion.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
anyone can have an opinion.
When you claim rights that don't exist while calling for existing rights to be reduced, your opinion on those rights are not worthy of listening to.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
What rights are they trying to reduce? Criminals ones?
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
The right to defend ourselves from tyranny and defend our families at all costs. Are you seriously not aware of the logic behind the 2nd amendment?
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-03-26
so many people here literally have no argument against guns. It's all feelings.
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
This right doesn't exist in America. Stop watching Fox news
1 RoostasTowel 2018-03-26
There isnt a right to defend yourself and your family?
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
Not from tyranny. It is literally a contradiction. If a government is tyrannical, then you have no right to defend yourself.
For example, I think its tyrannical that the government tells me I cant smoke weed. I truly do. Why does the government have the power to tell me that with the penalty of locking me in a cage? Now lets say the FBI or DEA or whatever raided my house and found alot of drugs. They attempt to arrest me and my family so I use my "2nd amendment right" to fight against the tyrannical government. Its pretty easy to imagine what would happen to me in this scenario.
This is why the "protect yourself from a tyrannical government" argument is bullshit
1 RoostasTowel 2018-03-26
What if it's from an invading foreign government?
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist? Who indoctrinated you?
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
try to fight against a "tyrannical" government and sees what happens to you. Its a logical fallacy. Read my previous post for details
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
No idea what this means.
I'll take death over slavery any day. That's my God given, 2nd amendment right. And no one will take it from me.
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
Some want to ban bump stocks. Some want to ban ar-15s. Some want to ban all semi-auto rifles. Some want to ban all semi-auto weapons. Some want to ban all guns. Some want to remove the rights of adults aged 18-21 to buy a gun.
They are infringing on the right to bear arms. This is not difficult to pick up.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Who is they and do you have statistics and references to back up your information?
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
Huh? You essentially said nobody is trying to reduce rights. Just open your ears and you will hear the talking heads and students from Parkland trying to stop people from owning certain items. "They" range from people speaking their minds on cnn, to signs protestors were carrying for the march, to the stated goals of organizations such as Everytown, to Diane Fienstien saying that the stated goal is to have "Mr and Mrs America" "turn in their guns". Or maybe the gun laws that were introduced to ban and confiscate semi-automatic rifles? Do the new state minimum age laws not reduce the rights or US citizens who are 18-21 years old?
Tell me which one of those example you can't Google yourself. How can you possibly be aware of the current political climate and say nobody is trying to reduce rights?
1 asjdnfasldfnasl 2018-03-26
It's not criminal to own a gun but it would be if they got their way.
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
So by raising the legal age to buy a rifle, that would mean we should also increase the minimum age for voting?
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
Other way around. Rifle age>voting age.
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
Driving age >voting age
Military age>voting age
See how easy it is to type something without actually saying anything?
Five year olds are "old enough to fire a gun" technically speaking. Why are you trying to take away the rights of adults in the US to defend themselves?
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
I agree with all those statements. If you are mature enough to make the decision to enlist or control 2 tons of vehicle then you should be able to vote.
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
Oh, so you want to reduce the voting age to 16?
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
What are you talking about? The fact that they don't want to use clear backpacks to show their tampons, or if they want some rights to privacy? Why not make other real suggestions instead of giving one answer and acting like that nothing can exist outside of that? Seems very ignorant, and obviously more like you have an agenda.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Some of the most vocal protesters do not know the difference between a want (non-clear backpacks) and actual acknowledged rights.
Now, you ask for some suggestions, I ask for what? The roughly 15,000 gun murders per year? We can start to worry about that when it becomes more than a five-thousandth of the percentage of deaths in America.
I do have an agenda. One that I have studied for years, proper understanding of ALL of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
You mean, one that was created by a racist society to prevent slaves from killing their colonialist oppressors? No one is trying to take away all guns. The government already gets to decide who can legally possess a gun.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
Other than 2A, what issue do you have with the first 10 amendments? Do you not believe in freedom of speech since it was written by the same people?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
The Bill of Rights only recognizes a handful of rights. Many more exist that are not mentioned. For example, there is a right to privacy.
1 Weareone2 2018-03-26
The fourth amendment?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Also the 3rd, although the 3rd really hasn't been tested in court. However, it is a little bit of a stretch to extend a protection against unreasonable search and seizure to a protection of general privacy.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
I agree, to an extent. This was hotly debated post constitution / pre Bill of Rights. Many thought it would take away from the natural rights if you codified some but not "all". (and look where we are now). Just I don't think it is a second amendment violation to disallow firearms in schools, I also do not believe it's a forth amendment violation to disallow certain items. Do you feel it would be a rights violation to say no one can bring backpacks into the school?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Minors don't have the rights afforded to adults, so the easy answer is that no it is not a rights violation because they are minors.
I don't really know, though. I'm not an expert on the 4th Amendment. My thought is that the examples you mention are indeed violations of those amendments.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
My stance softens quite a bit when on public or other's property. I feel you have absolute rights at you home (ie, full auto, sbr, surpressor, etc). But when you step into public I bit of those rights are waived as a member of society. (not looking to change your mind, just explaining my stance)
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
Yes, the forth amendment is an extension of the right to privacy.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Yes, but it doesn't apply to a general protection of privacy.
HIPAA, for example, is an attempt at enacting a generalized protect for medical data. However, I believe we have a generalized right to privacy which is largely unrecognized at the moment.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
I agree. I just don't believe it extends to the type of backpack that is or is not allowed on school property.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
I think it does.
Now in the specific case of schools, the students are minors and I suppose one could attempt to make an argument that this gives some excuse for infringing on their right to privacy.
But generally speaking, mandating public inspection of your personal effects seems to me to be an infringement of the right of protection against unreasonable search.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
I truly feel that question comes down to if they have a right to a backpack at school. I can't find a way to come to that conclusion.
1 TheWiredWorld 2018-03-26
Do you see the world in literally 2 absolutes?
1 exkreations 2018-03-26
I actually fucking cringe when people are almost closed minded to the point that it's seemingly intentional.
1 AUsername334 2018-03-26
Oh but trust me it is so much more annoying when your kid has the opposite political beliefs that you do, haha. Your kid probably looks up to you and wants to emulate you, that's a good thing.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
I'm sure that will be the younger one. They can't seem to find anything they agree one.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
So. Play devil's advocate. Take the opposite side.
1 exHeavyHippie 2018-03-26
Oh I do. And it's hard. Today I challenged him to define militia, regulate, and "the people". This is exactly why I argue with those that oppose me. To strengthen my counters to him. I know I'll never change an adults mind, but I can try to allow my son to know his beliefs are beliefs and no body truly has the best answer on anything thing.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-03-26
It's also possible with adults, but both minds (yours and theirs) have to be open to change.
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
The problem is not within the children themselves, but withing the media that exposes them and use them as human shield to fulfill their agenda.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
What is their agenda in your mind exactly?
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
The apparent reason is taking away one more right from citizens.
But also damaging the trump administration of course.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
What right are they trying to take away from you? I am genuinely interested where you see them advocating on banning all guns?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
No you are not. The pics are everywhere, hell those Parkland brats have said it clearly. David Hogg's plan is quite clear.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Of what? Pictures of people advocating for banning all guns? Sure, I'm sure that you will find some, but many and most (from what I could tell) people at the March were responsible gun owners themselves that simply wanted to make sure that loopholes did not exist. Which students were advocating for banning all guns? What did Hogg suggest exactly that you felt indicated that?
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
Fuck off you lying piece of shit
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
It is true, you want me to send you a link so that you can cry about it?
1 GobBluth19 2018-03-26
why are you so triggered?
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
There was a March put on by the DNC and corporate globalist media that used children to push for the rights of Americans to be taken away. In the past, people used to march AGAINST the government FOR rights. Now, people march FOR the government AGAINST rights.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-03-26
Rule 10
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Also... do you feel better calling these kids brats, when in reality you just don't like young people with voices?
1 zargusplow 2018-03-26
The right to bear arms has already been infringed upon. Look at the laundry list of weapons you can't purchase. Most people agree that it's a good thing those weapons are banned. Whats so different about moving the line a bit farther?
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
For what? What difference will it make?
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Prevent more dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of mentally unstable people in a society fueled by propaganda and fear, as well as the NRA that profits from crime.
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
You are mentally ill, and you should not bear arms IMO.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Don't worry... I choose not to own a gun because I am a vegetarian and am not scared of everyone, but I support people's rights to own them within reason (restrictions on automatics/semis) and stricter background checks.
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
Funny! I too am vegetarian!
Anyway:
stricter background: fine
ban on semis: BS/fascist move + useless + kill a huge market.
Makes sense?
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Not really.. how is it a BS fascist move? Who and what does it harm exactly?
1 jerkwood09 2018-03-26
Which loop holes currently exist?
1 zargusplow 2018-03-26
Well for starters more kids would be alive at Parkland High School. Ultimately we'll never know how much good it will do. You can't count things that didn't happen. 15-100(?) People die in mass shootings by rifles every year. Where do you draw the line? How many people need to die before you consider it important? It may be inconsequential to the vast majority of Americans, but to those unlucky few it means everything. So yes, I consider those 15-100 people's right to not get shot by a rifle more important than your "right" to own a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine.
Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop every shooting. Violence will continue with or without guns. That doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent it.
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
1 zargusplow 2018-03-26
Because nobody was talking about this before Trump was president. Not everything is about making your husbando look bad.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
And every solo gun nut/wannabe operator/mall ninja thinks they qualify as a one man militia.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
This mentality is exactly why no one will listen to you.
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-03-26
Should we remove all regulations on voting?
1 TheyAreLying2Us 2018-03-26
No, you should force the stricter laws possible.
And the same on background checks for buying weapons.
But banning an entire set of weapons that have been around since WWII is stupidly idiotic. Same for bumpstocks (which are toys for kids, no use whatsoever). Oh, and all of a sudden, YT and Reddit banning weapons from their content is also fascist and useless, other than ruining a dying platform even more.
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
To eliminate the 2nd amendment. There were hundreds of signs saying exactly that at the march.
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
Do you know how many people attended the March, and do you have video/photo proof of these 100s of signs advocating for eliminating the 2nd amendment entirely?
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
Right here https://i.redd.it/cierdg0n14o01.jpg
1 perfect_pickles 2018-03-26
same tactic as Saddam Hussein and Mao, this is who the DNC and Soros are emulating.
1 flowtrop 2018-03-26
It doesn't really matter whether the OP agrees with the kids protesting or not agreeing. In fact, he doesn't even mention if he agrees or disagrees with them.
He is simply pointing out that exploiting children for political purposes is fucked up.
1 Xatos1337 2018-03-26
I had to scroll down this far just to find you -- the first person who didn't allow themselves to be distracted or misguided.
1 flowtrop 2018-03-26
Emotional decisions are never good decisions. Stay true
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
If a series of events selectively, exclusively, repeatably affects kids, it's hard to talk about those events without bringing the kids into the conversation. It'd be cool if they weren't being murdered at school, though.
Maybe if the 13k yearly gun homicides in the US stayed out of schools we could just continue to not think about something so unpleasant.
1 NorthBlizzard 2018-03-26
ITT: People attacking this sub or posting basic /r/politics comments
Seems OP struck a nerve
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Indeed. OP’s articulate, subtle, and well-reasoned political commentary is as intelligent and provocative as it is relevant to this sub. Which is to say: not at all.
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-26
Why are you here? Seriously, though.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Because I like hearing about and exploring various theories about secret, sometimes harmful, sometimes entertaining, often serious activities that impact our lives and societies.
Just because I think gun owners (like me) should be subject to the same kinds of regulations as pilots and others who operate dangerous machinery—and just because I like credible evidence underpinning conspiracies I put any stock in—doesn’t mean I don’t have a place on this sub.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Not interested in entertaining the pretty obvious propaganda going on in the form of using children to beat the drum of stripping citizens’ rights though.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
"pretty obvious" is an opinion. If you present me with some solid evidence supporting your assertion, I would be happy to do so. Nothing I've seen thus far has been very convincing--based on what I've seen, my sense is that increased regulation of firearms is a goal shared by many American teenagers, and that those teenagers are allying themselves with likeminded adults, and thus a loose "movement" in support of that goal has emerged.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Yes, because teenagers are so capable of galvanizing such a movement. It couldn't possibly be backed by Democratic interests behind the scenes. /s
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
It is 1000% backed by proponents of firearms regulation, and not even "behind the scenes". Some kids got fired up about this issue after seeing their friends get killed, the issue resonated with some other kinds (including some who probably just wanted to skip class--but not all), and then some likeminded adults joined up with them and lent them resources and a platform. No conspiracy there, and nothing wrong with it. No movement starts or grows in a vacuum.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
The kids we're hearing from didn't see anyone die. The kids who did but who don't have the "politically correct" opinion have been silenced and/or ignored by MSM.
It's blatantly obvious to any unbiased individual (which I am, whether you feel I sound like it or not – I'm a bleeding heart liberal who has never even shot a gun and didn't know what AR stood for until last year) that these kids are being used to further a political agenda.
I have no doubt they believe what they say. And I do believe every person should have a platform to espouse their beliefs. But these kids have been cherrypicked by those who have the most to gain from a political fight on the 2nd Amendment.
Is this a conversation our country needs to have?
Sure. Of course. But it's disingenuous to pretend like these kids are up there just speaking from the heart. They are being coached. They are being groomed. They and their political handlers are capitalizing on a tragedy that is more personal to others than it is to them in order to further a political agenda.
This isn't a conversation. They aren't listening to anyone. They are intentionally shutting down the conversation by using children to speak for them.
Hell, there are people on the other side at that DC march holding up signs in disagreement (vulgar though they may be) and they are being publicly targeted and shamed with the intention of SHUTTING DOWN ALL DISCOURSE.
The message is blatantly clear: "Fall in line or get ran over."
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
Also ITT: the fundie conservatives coming out in droves to tell us all how "murdering" a fetus is wrong.
1 garthock 2018-03-26
Struck a nerve because his comment is stupid and not well thought out. Children are a part of this nation and should be considered since they are directly affected by many laws.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
Times have changed, indeed. I remember as a kid in elementary school & middle school the only thing we had to worry about was the occasional bully thumping our ears and the only drills were for tornadoes. That was a little over 20 years ago for me.
1 DonBB 2018-03-26
Over 20 years ago, you caught the sweep spot after having to hide under your desk for nuclear attack drills during the Cold War but before having to hide under your desk for active shooter drills.
I graduated high school in 2001, I caught most of that time frame as well.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Let's make the drinking age 16 then.
1 stealthboy 2018-03-26
Holy crap you're not kidding. I thought I stumbled into r/politics here.
1 gematrix 2018-03-26
Dec 2012 Sandy Hoax? Feb 14, 2018 Parkland (movie mockery) shooting and ~300 other school shootings only in USA? Hollywood & Gov tycoons using kids ongoingly? Perpetual War ON kids
1 xolotl-tlaloc 2018-03-26
Reminds me of this American Classic:
1 FictionalNameWasTake 2018-03-26
I like how OP is being vague and the comments are all inferring that OP meant something specific, and then . It's like a Rorschach test.
1 Trez1999 2018-03-26
He saw it on fox news about the children in dc. Pretty obvious
1 lf11 2018-03-26
You imagined that in your mind. Where does he mention Fox? Where does he talk about kids in DC?
This is the magic of propaganda: it makes you see things that aren't there.
1 Trez1999 2018-03-26
Well maybe it was the fix headline of the time, waters world/Hannity and the Ben garsion cartoon..funny you mention propaganda
1 seattlethrowawayy22 2018-03-26
Fuck you if you don't think 17 year olds aren't essentially adults and have the right to political viewpoints.
1 Trez1999 2018-03-26
Like abortion?
Or using the military to wrap yourself in a freedom bonner as you increasing the national debt for no reason.
1 perfectionits 2018-03-26
On that topic, try listening to this programmed kid:
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/syria-bana-alabed-cry-for-help-cnntv/index.html
1 GobBluth19 2018-03-26
Or having young girls come sing at your rally about how great the USA is, then not paying them for their work
1 CoinSurfer1 2018-03-26
The entire mislabeled “transgender” movement is a heinous example of this. A
1 TesticleMayhem 2018-03-26
What?! How?
1 Jerrimu 2018-03-26
Dude, hate to break it to you, but it's the children who have the agenda.
1 GoldenTarot 2018-03-26
It’s a mixture. There are adults behind them in some way, shape, or form. The kids didn’t assemble this entire thing by themselves.
The kids do truly want it though, your right.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
Yeah fuck parents who support their kids and other adults who help organize things for them /s
1 GoldenTarot 2018-03-26
Not what is meant. It’s more than just parents in this case.
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
This a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
1 AmansRevenger 2018-03-26
Maybe because you are clueless?
Because if you say children that dont wanna get shot are somehow used for an agenda, Fuck. You.
Greetings from a civilized country with less annual gun deaths than Chicago in a day.
1 UnbearablePenguin 2018-03-26
Someone earlier called the Parkland kids "brats." What kind of person denigrates the survivors of a shooting?
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
I think for some, they feel it’s okay to criticize them because they are overstating their experience of the shooting. For example, David Hogg was in no danger at any point and you can tell this from his videos during the shooting.
He was in a separate building. He clearly exemplified no fear or unease.
Even as the shooting was still happening, he was capitalizing on it as a journalistic opportunity to create a foothold for himself.
Which he is still doing.
Maybe some were directly in the line of fire and can be considered heroes or heroic survivors.
But I don’t think we’re hearing from those kids.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Right? It's just like all those phony 9/11 'victims' who were in no immediate danger during the attack but who still claim to be 'scarred' by the experience. So what if you live in the same city? If you weren't breathing the ashes of the dead you're obviously fine!
/s
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Running from a crumbling 100-story building and washing ash off your clothes and body is the same as interviewing students in a separate building while pushing your own politics?
No. The answer is: no, it isn't.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
I'm talking about folks who lived in New York but were nowhere near the attack. Some of them shot video at the time, too. Would you tell those people that they had no right to feel disturbed? Or to express their opinions of the attack politically?
This idea that you can't be legitimately affected by an event unless you were at ground zero and/or crying in the fetal position is weak nonsense. Give it up.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
It has nothing to do with not being legitimately affected by a tragedy. It has to do with taking advantage of that tragedy to benefit personally (like David Hogg) or using the victims of that tragedy to further a political agenda.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Nothing to do with being legitimately affected. Right.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Would I criticize one of the New Yorkers you're referring to above for overstating their experience of 9/11? Yes, if they were using that overstated experience to further a political agenda.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Oh, you were at the school where the shooting took place? And some of your classmates died? Psh. Talk to me when the shooter sprays someone's brains across your face, loser.
/r/gatekeeping
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Watch David Hogg's interviews in the library during the shooting and then come back and tell me he was scarred by those tragic events.
He uses them as an opportunity to further his journalistic aspirations.
Like he is still doing.
He's an opportunistic nerd who is capitalizing on the admitted tragic deaths of kids he never even knew.
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
Greetings from a country that didn’t ask for your cunty opinion on OUR rights.
1 AmansRevenger 2018-03-26
Nice input you got there. Do facts offend you snowflake?
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
No, European cucks who feel the need to interject on u.s. policy do.
1 AmansRevenger 2018-03-26
so, facts :)
Got it.
1 I_HAVE_POON_WORMZ 2018-03-26
If you wanted to be educated by children that want more gun laws that will inevitably be used to imprison mostly black men then more power to you.
1 Victawr 2018-03-26
I have a feeling that generation isn't the one that has anything wrong with blacks
1 WordSlinger1812 2018-03-26
Agree. Is it really so scary to realize that the human beings who will take over the planet after you are dead and gone are going to radically alter it to the point where the threat of violence will not be the leverage upon which social interaction is based? Apparently it is for some.
1 Osmium_tetraoxide 2018-03-26
I agree if this is talking about the protests in the USA about gun violence. I was politically active from the age of 14 as my government had been meddling with student finance. I was kettled by the police back in 2010 when I was 15. I learned at this age that my government does not care for me and that society will not stand up, only for themselves. As austerity has dragged on in Britain, as the first canaries in the coal mine, everyone is still complacent to the neoliberal disaster which is happening.
Children can be political, (12-18), don't doubt this for a second. My parents opposed me protesting but I lied to them so I was let out. Young people are capable of critical thinking and as adults we need to nurture it, not insult their capabilities.
The really outrageous use of children is in war propaganda, e.g. Naimyirah Testimony, Alan Kurdi Omran, Boy of Aleppo to say the least. They get used to justify actions which causes suffering to 100'000's + children that do not get photographed, just called "collateral damage" for western interests.
1 HelperBot_ 2018-03-26
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 164196
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
This a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
1 Jerrimu 2018-03-26
I was gonna debate you, but you called out military pieces of shit, and said only crazy people would vaccinate their kids, so you are on some next level weirdness. Please don't reproduce.
1 cacapipi123 2018-03-26
Pro military, pro Vaccine and anti-gun...
Why the fuck are you on a conspiracy sub?
1 Jerrimu 2018-03-26
/r/gatekeeping is thataway
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
Back in the day when everyone was worried about FEMA camps and marshal law the one thing that made me know everything would be okay is that our military is made up of people who live here and have family and friends here.
They would never do something to their own country that they wouldn't do to themselves, their family, and their closest friends.
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
Trying to make you pro-military, pro-vaccine, and anti-gun
1 RedYagoda 2018-03-26
Brainwashed people have flocked to their his sub recently to enlighten us with their naive nonsense.
1 garyp714 2018-03-26
Shame your ideological views can't withstand that difference of opinion. One would think a 'woke' sub would be able to handle differing ideas without all the constant whining.
1 _josepi_ 2018-03-26
The subsequent result of media programming.
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-03-26
Perhaps CPR will help you?
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Just like yours.
1 Dekodev 2018-03-26
Hate to break it to you but this is supposed to be a goddamn conspiracy forum not a toe the official line like a brain dead simp forum jesus this place is a fucking shambles
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
This is a comment I'd expect to see on r/politics from the average person who is clueless about the way things really work.
Why am I now seeing these comments all the time on r/conspiracy and who's upvoting them?
1 Jerrimu 2018-03-26
Did you delete and repost? Cause you ( i read your profile before I replied ) 100% posted this shit a few hours ago.
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
Really? Millions of kids organized the largest protest in history with no outside influence from adults? Wonder where they got the millions of dollars for transportation. Was there a go fund me page somewhere?
1 Jerrimu 2018-03-26
Most of the people I saw were early to mid 20s.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
As you were typing "with no outside influence from adults?" was there a moment where you paused and thought, "as far as strawman arguments go, this one might be a little bit too obvious, I mean I'm 100% putting words in his mouth, maybe I shouldn't say this" or are you just cynical enough for that to not even register with you anymore?
1 PM_me_killer_chess 2018-03-26
What about when kids seem to pushing their own agenda?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Lots of kids are pushing lots of different agendas. But the only ones that get publicized are the ones that agree with the Narrative.
Same situation with voting. You can have any candidate you want so long as We select your choices.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
Are you not sick of hearing near weekly about crazy people with excessive firepower killing innocent people? That is a bad thing, right? Are you doing anything to change that, or in some small fashion make it happen less? Some people are.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Chairman Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The political power of "Everyman" is going to vanish like morning mist if they are actually serious about disarming.
Of course I am. You know what stops crazy people from killing a bunch of innocents? Knowing you'll just be instantly shot for your troubles. The End.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
Crazy people aren't deterred by that
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-03-26
They're not deterred by the fucking law either, dude.
Though you did mention crazy. That right there is a good issue to bring light too. Because it gets glossed the fuck over because ohmygod gun.
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-03-26
You wanna bring up stats and numbers instead of just down voting me?
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
Yes they are- the law for the vast vast isn’t some switch where you’re either a “super good law dude” or a “baddy Wild West outlaw”. Some folks speed. Some folks speed and smoke pot. Some folks follow the letter of the law except commit massive securities fraud. Some folks follow the law but one time get into a heated fucking argument and at that particular moment grab for the most deadly weapon available. Clearly laws often work as a deterrent, even to people who may otherwise break other laws.
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-03-26
But we're talking about crazy people with guns.
1 my_friend_mmpeter 2018-03-26
You wanna bring up stats and numbers, instead of just down voting me?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Then why do they pick gun-free zones?
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
Do you honestly believe Americans have political power in their system greater than literally every other country on earth, and that power is perfectly commensurate to total number/availability of guns? Would you have any data to back up this hypothesis?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Certainly not, and that's not what I said. I said that "Everyman" is going to lose their political power if they are serious about disarming. I stand by that statement.
How about: we're the oldest continuous democratic government on the planet? A threat of armed revolt is an excellent way to keep government in line, thus we haven't needed to revolt.
1 garthock 2018-03-26
Exactly stop using those unborn children to push your anti abortion laws
Stop using Autistic children as a way to push your anti vaccine narrative
1 GoldenTarot 2018-03-26
Aumen to that.
1 tendeuchen 2018-03-26
I think the kids are pushing for their own agenda, i.e. not getting shot in a place they should be safe.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Each of them is far more likely to die from popping pills than a gun.
1 mikellerseviltwin 2018-03-26
sounds like another issue that needs to be fixed. These things dont have to be one or the other. dividing everything like that is why its so difficult to fix anything
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Sure, but there's a finite amount of money available to fix anything at all. Better to work on things that give you a better ROI.
1 mikellerseviltwin 2018-03-26
like super expensive military parades? lets not fucking kid ourselves that the government ever uses money efficiently and where its actually needed.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
Because a hell of a lot more people die from drug overdoses and medical errors, and therefore you can save more lives?
1 tpwb 2018-03-26
At least they have that choice.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
If teachers weren't forced to be disarmed, then they wouldn't be quite so vulnerable to getting shot by a crazed maniac.
1 tpwb 2018-03-26
That's assuming that no teachers are crazed maniacs.
1 lf11 2018-03-26
If they are, then why are they teaching?
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
I've had some teachers that absolutely hate children and do nothing to hide it. I've asked myself that same question many times.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
What about that one bad teacher that has a bad day or when a kid manages to confiscate a gun from a teacher?
1 lf11 2018-03-26
That would be bad if it happened, but so far it hasn't been a problem in those states which allow teachers to carry firearms. So I don't know why it would suddenly become a problem when it has not been a problem thus far.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
So you're telling me there are no incidents where a teacher in any state has gone irate like that? Like 0?
1 tendeuchen 2018-03-26
Dude, there was a guy teaching gun safety to his class who shot one of the students like last week or the week before.
Solving gun violence in schools isn't going to be accomplished by throwing more guns at the problem, just like eating more peanuts isn't the solution to helping you when you have an allergic reaction to peanuts.
1 zargusplow 2018-03-26
You're acting like the people protesting are toddlers. Did you not have political opinions at 16?
1 cacapipi123 2018-03-26
Yes, and they were completely different to the one's I have now as an adult.
1 BlackhawkBolly 2018-03-26
Mine are mostly the same, doesn't mean you were wrong to have them at 16.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
Turning 17 helps to cement them.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
This is true for me but between the ages of 18 and 30. Other folks I know would certainly agree with the things they thought at either of those ages.
Your opinions can change at any time- I’m not sure it matters when and I’m not sure that means you shouldn’t express yourself
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
'Don't want my friends and I to get shot at' isn't a belief that requires a lot of political intelligence or nuance to hold. I give that one solid odds of reaching adulthood unchanged.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
Such a one sided view of an issue.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Certainly it is. Unapologetically so.
That's okay sometimes, you know. If I were to say 'I don't want to get murdered by a serial killer' nobody would stop me to ask if I've considered what the serial killers want.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
Lol wut
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Didn't say it was. The point is that a one-sided view isn't wrong by default, which was your buried premise.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
So your point is that rational debate is meritless?
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Sure, from a practical perspective it can be. Try arguing with a flat earther then tell me whether it was worth your time.
Great, try actually making a case, then.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
I’ll let smarter people than myself make the arguments in favor. I’m trying to pick off low hanging fruits like yourself.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
By not arguing your case? Interesting strategy lol.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
About a good as strategy as yours, which seems to be appeals to emotion followed by a fingers in the ear approach to discourse. Good luck with that.
1 Railboy 2018-03-26
Right, how rude of me not to listen to an argument you've declined to make. XD
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
She make your argument here. Honestly says it better than anyone I’ve seen.
1 TDMAC14 2018-03-26
Stupid ones
1 WordSlinger1812 2018-03-26
You don’t fuck the future, Sir. The future fucks you.
1 FunHegemon 2018-03-26
Another victim of Fox News.
1 333666999999 2018-03-26
Can everyone see how every anti-conspiracy, pro government comment lands at the top?
1 axolotl_peyotl 2018-03-26
Yes.
1 DonBB 2018-03-26
Why is it that whenever comments veer too far away from right-wing talking points, moderators have to step in to "help" steer it back into being an echo chamber?
1 BrokenAreos 2018-03-26
u/axolotl_peyotl literally bans users for talking about the Russia investigation. He usually deletes threads or puts them into contest mode when people in the sub are expressing wrongthink (non alt-right talking points).
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
If this doesn’t scream coordinated brigading effort I have no idea what will.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Hmm, are there people who disagree sith my views???? No of course not they're just paid to say they disagree!
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
If you really can’t see how obvious it is I can’t help you. Conspiracy never used to have mainstream media, pro government pro authoritarian top comments like it does now. This is r/conspiracy not r/politics or r/The_Donald. Pro government shit does not belong here, neither does the stupid one party is better dribble that’s spread here.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
You still didn't address the point. Just because there are people here who disagree with your views on the government doesn't mean a "coordinated brigading effort" is underway.
If somebody believes in the conspiracy theory that George Bush did 9/11, but they are happy with the gun control and public healthcare system in their country, where are they supposed to go? If somebody believes there's an internal right wing conspiracy to dismantle public welfare systems in an effort to create a permanently wage-slavery-dependent population, where should they go? Or are conspiracy theories only for right wingers?
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
Conspiracy theories are here for anyone willing to believe in conspiracies. Regardless of political belief, pushing pro government rhetoric should be highly frowned upon. Not my fault those on the far left push pro establishment views when it comes to gun control.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
This is what the right wing believes. This is not the view of 100% of people who believe in conspiracy theories.
People on the left believe that bad people have done bad things while in government offices, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a government. You can't claim that people who are into conspiracy theories should be anti-government and that conspiracy theories aren't just for right wingers, because those are two contradictory ideas.
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
You don’t have to be completely anti government. I just find it ridiculous the people in a conspiracy forum pushing for more government regulation and control. Like that hasn’t gone wrong before.
Also the narrative in r/conspiracy was never this pro establishment government. The amount of r/politics users here is even more obvious then when the influx of TD users came in 2016.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
I’m actually for “sensible gun laws” and this shit is so obvious that I’m becoming more pro-2A than I was before.
It’s kind of like a Streisand effect.
1 lucky2014 2018-03-26
You sound like you are easily manipulated.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Solid argument /s
1 lucky2014 2018-03-26
It was an observation and not an argument. Go work on your vocabulary.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Since we're talking observations: you sound like you're a lap dog whose nose belongs inside the dark recesses of Democratic elite rear-ends.
Just an observation though.
1 lucky2014 2018-03-26
u mad
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
I'm glad I'm smarter than you.
1 lucky2014 2018-03-26
https://78.media.tumblr.com/0b5c89857a2146ecd432ca9aa7342224/tumblr_opjhyxihSL1v7ypcqo1_500.gif
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Hey, I love Sunny too – see, we're more alike than different...
1 perfect_pickles 2018-03-26
same MO as Mao's 'Cultural Revolution'.
1 highllama 2018-03-26
I'm so glad subscribed to the/conspiracy so I can tell people like you to fuck off!
1 Normie_account 2018-03-26
What a cancer comment section lol
1 psypher5 2018-03-26
What about if the agenda is good? Or at least providing a solid foundation to which the children can learn, nurture their own minds, in comfort and safety?
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Children are not fit to decide on their own about everything. Having an opinion and having power to change are two entirely different things. They have not seen the world and have no life experience. Much of their knowledge is what they are told and learn from others. They are prone to false impression and at young age are fighting to find their own ideology and standards. Let children be children and leave decisions to adults.
1 defenestrate 2018-03-26
I'd say those kids who were at Parkland have more life experience than a lot of adult will ever have.
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Nah. They have an experience of an incident which few people have but that does not make them experienced in life.
1 defenestrate 2018-03-26
And exactly what kind of experience in life makes a person qualified to hold strong convictions on certain socio- political issues?
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Life lived long enough to experience majority of situations that one can face in a society.
Children do not understand what socio-political issues made specific laws as they are. They are not educated enough by life. Let children be children who are guided into right paths by mature adults guided by elderly who collectively have faced enough to share their wisdom. That is why even in primitive societies elderly were held in high regards and consulted in serious matters.
Taking away guns will not solve anything. It's not like countries where guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen. It's a socio-cultural problem. You take away guns knife will take its place. Guns from black market will surface. Cars,trucks and bombs will be used. Deranged people will make use of anything if they want to harm.
Furthermore,this is not the time to let guns go.
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
Point 1: That is in fact exactly what happens in other countries, any collection of data will show the huge difference in gun deaths between the US and other deveolped nations.
Point 2: "Guns are restricted crimes by gun doesn't happen." Seriously did you even GO to school?
Care to enlighten us as to why?
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
These are comments made by you. On some people shaming tactics don't work. I have been on this sub long enough to see third class people like you weekly for years.
Get a life and if possible few friends also. It will help with your loneliness and may cool you. You don't like my comments downvote and move on but don't indulge like a petty bastard.
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
And he walks right into his own trap...
1 dj10show 2018-03-26
What is this bullshit? Laws and societal norms were made to enrich the elite at the expense of the commoner. A lot of the conspiracy theories that get bandied about today, many of us figured out in high school. I knew that the Fed controlling our cash flow without our currency being backed by anything but fairy dust was going to be a bad deal. We did a research project that basically proved that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't just acting as a lone wolf back in 2002 for high school. Hell, some adults are flat idiots. You don't get an honor of distinction just for being old.
1 defenestrate 2018-03-26
So much of this is completely subjective though. There's countless examples of the pitfalls and shortcomings of societies being guided by "mature adults" whose life experience has made them cynical or callous or uncaring.
I agree it's a socio-cultural problem. It's so socio-cultural that we can't even discuss it apparently - any attempts at even restrictions of guns are blocked out by a variety of tactics, including saying "why bother doing anything at all, people will still die regardless", which entitely misses the point, intentionally I believe. Be it at the public discourse level or at the political decision making level (where research into gun violence has been blocked for decades). The right has effectively made any discussion on guns a non-starter for years
Okay
1 BagOfFlies 2018-03-26
No shit. But what are the numbers compared to the US? Nobody thinks gun laws will stop every single gun crime. It's about reduction, not elimination.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
Pfffft
1 Bk1n_ 2018-03-26
some adults never leave the state they grew up in. Is this life experience? Should they not be allowed to vote because they lack 'real' life experience
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
Holy fuck you're oblivious...
You do realise that the children you call "prone to false impression" and who should "leave decisions to adults" are allowed to buy guns in many states?
Smh some people.
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Children under 18 can own gun but not without their parents agreement. If you fail to recognize a simple fact that guns don't kill but people kill people then you are impervious.
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
Just gonna quote an earlier comment because the work has been done for me:
(Credit to u/AlcoholicOwl)
Also impervious definition: https://www.google.ie/search?q=impervious+definition&oq=impervious+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.4196j1j9&client=ms-unknown&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Sorry no formatting on mobile.
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Impervious suits you,believe me.
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
So I'm "not allowing fluids to pass through"?
Or maybe: "unable to be affected by"?
Jfc dude how fucking old are you?
1 HyBReD 2018-03-26
I guess because you can buy a car at 13 you should have a say in how car laws work, too.
Hell you can buy bread at any age, where do we protest the gluten lobby?
1 waitwhothefuckisthis 2018-03-26
It's not that these children are going to have a direct say in gun law, they will have to wait til they're 18 to vote on any issue. It's that they are inspiring talk and debate on a topic in which they are very heavily involved in. Some people have a problem with this, and I really don't see why.
1 HyBReD 2018-03-26
For me it's mostly that every adult knows they were idiots when they were younger. I'm fine with letting them do their own thing as an after school hobby. I'm not ok with the media clearly picking sides to push their own agenda. Especially when these same outlets will be calling kids clueless idiots the moment the next time pod fiasco begins or they start talking about subjects they don't want heard.
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-26
What about inner city schools that are violent and disruptive to what you just stated? Or are those just glossed over because they're not high-profile enough?
I live in a bad neighborhood. My male roommate was gone all weekend. You bet we have guns, and not for no reason. We've had people come up on our property threatening us just because we tell their kids to stop throwing things at our dog. We look out our back window into the alley and see people having sex in their cars, using that space to drop off/strip stolen cars, do drugs, etc. Sorry, but the laws on the books need to be enforced and kids in schools that are disruptive need to be disciplined, not coddled because they're the wrong skin color and their parents will sue the schools for racism.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
Did the person you’re responding to say you shouldn’t have any guns or did they literally propose the vague concept that there is a universe in which kids protesting can be reasonable?
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-26
Impressive how you can use "literally" to qualify a "vague concept" (subjective) that is supposedly "universal" (subjective) and, of course, "reasonable" (subjective) so as to discount my LITERAL RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS which is REASONABLE seeing as how the SECOND amendment guarantees the FIRST, being among the TEN amendments we call the BILL OF RIGHTS which does not GRANT rights, it PROTECTS our rights from the Government's interference.
1 becauseineedone3 2018-03-26
Having a child IS pushing your agenda forward.
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
It’s insane how much the media has used these kids to push an agenda for more gun control. First articles advocating for being able to vote at 16 years old, now this. I’d bet not one of these kids would have the smarts to articulate how we should go about gun control.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
Seriously, can't they just accept that we'd rather continue to leave their lives in the balance than make our most powerful weapons more difficult to obtain like every other first world country...?
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
More people die from handguns than rifles. This is how the government works they chip a little bit slowly. First it’s a magazine ban then it’s an “assault rifle” ban. Pretty soon “semi automatic weapon ban” and wouldn’t you know it pistols are semi automatic! That’s a scary word let’s ban them too!
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
Slippery slope fallacy. Just because some people might try to get more, has no bearing on whether or not certain steps should or should not be taken.
1 JeffBoucher 2018-03-26
Even when they tweet it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives-protest-gun-violence-washington
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
What's your point? I already said whether or not people want more has no bearing on whether or not a single change is reasonable.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
It’s only a fallacy if you can’t prove it to be true. OP just provided you proof.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
That's not proof that it is true, it is proof that some people will push for more.
Almost universally, you can find people who will push for more, so this means we can use that argument to oppose almost any change. It's a fallacy used to avoid actual meaningful debate on what changes are appropriate.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
It is proof that the sea of those demanding an inch are chanting for a mile as well. So who do we listen to? Who do we trust? Why should we give an inch if a mile is already being discussed openly?
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
Stop viewing it as "giving an inch" and start viewing it as "let's talk about what's best for the country." it's not about "listening" to anyone about how far they want to go, it is about listening to and judging the merits of an argument.
"They want more!" is not a good argument against "this gun control measure."
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
We're letting you talk and some of your own are revealing their true intention of taking a fucking mile. Either acknowledge it or don't but facts are facts and that is a fucking fact.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
Who are "my own?"
I've repeatedly acknowledge that people will push for more. I've just repeatedly pointed out that what people push for is not an argument against what we should do. What more do you need me to do?
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
There are sides on this issue. Not because there should be but because one side is drawing a line (the protesters in DC made that very clear). You're on "their" side. I'm on the other (and I'm a non-gun-owning liberal lol).
It sucks that your side wants to start by banning bump stocks and use that as a means to banning many other weapons and (their hope) to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Sorry but hearing all of that nonsense means "my" side will stop listening. We gave you a chance. You blew it.
That's kind of a drawback of using children to speak for you.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
I've said nothing about sides. I've explicitly, multiple times, said it is important to focus on the actual issue. You have, subsequently, put me on a side, then bitched about how that side has put you on another side. LOL. The hypocrisy is laughable.
You have latched onto a logical fallacy, put words into my mouth, pigeonholed me, hypocritical did exactly what you are whining about other people are doing, and then falsely accused me of having children speak for me. It's like you are pulling out every stop to avoid an actual debate. You just want to personal attack, because that is much easier than honestly looking at the situation and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
I mean, go ahead and state your argument if you want. But you did not come at me as if you wanted a one-on-one discussion on this issue. We're talking about a national debate... which has been stifled because we've been forced to pick sides and one side (the left) is attempting to silence the voice of the other.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
And you are using the age old debate stifling tactic of labeling what appears to be an actual grass root campaign a conspiracy that involves one entire side of the political spectrum.
You aren't interested in the debate, you seem solely interested in forcing everyone onto a side and then just attacking the integrity of that side.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
I mean, that's the point of this fucking post dude. It's entirely about how a "side" is using children to present their argument.
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
Switching the debate. Amazing. What tactic won't he use folks!
Remember, our whole conversation started when you claimed someone "proved" the slippery slope was real.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
You know where you're looking right now? The center of the screen, right? Take those two beautiful dark pupils and aim them higher... keep going... almost there... now you got it! See? Right there at the top of the page? It says, "Fuck you if you use children to push your agenda."
Now, tell me again how I'm switching the debate...
1 EatATaco 2018-03-26
Look at your first response to me. If you were so concerned about talking solely about using children to push the political agenda, why did you harp on and on about defending the slippery slope fallacy, until it was obvious you had lost that point, before effectively saying "well, this isn't about the topic at hand"?
I know it is harder to admit you were wrong on the point than it is to try and pretend you were actually talking about something else, but the only person you might fool here with that is you.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Go ahead and tell me how the fuck I “lost the slipper slope argument.” Wtf are you talking about? I’ve granted you the opportunity numerous times to state your argument if that’s what you wish to do. But I’ve never admitted to whatever imaginary loss you’re dreaming up. You just wanna distract from the point of OP’s entire fucking post.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
Interesting narrative.
To clarify, I didn't mention banning assault rifles, I just think there should be more accountability for gun owners in general.
The US has a problem that no other developed country has, so I think there are some things we can learn from them to work on the way we approach ownership of weapons. We're not tasked with doing something new.
I don't think anyone can objectively look at our situation with full understanding and say that the current state of things is okay. Something has to happen, but a ban obviously isn't the solution.
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
I agree something needs to be done but what exactly is the question?
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
Not sure, but it's shameful that everyone seems to have this figured out except us. Most important thing is to get leadership from both sides onboard with working toward something that is on par with the countries we would like to be more like.
I feel the same about healthcare - we essentially are able to leverage "second mover advantage" to emulate the most efficient systems that currently exist in the world. That or we can keep bringing up the same solutions that have been pitched endlessly for the last 50 years.
My biggest criticism of this country is that we're so convinced that we're superior to everyone in every way that we're unable to learn from anyone else or be inspired by other countries. To me that lack of inspiration is what's leading to overall decline.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
I would say it's more of a lack of respect than a lack of inspiration.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
I feel like it's both, but you right
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
Yeah, thinking about it American's in general aren't very inspired.
Can confirm:/ Am uninspired.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
We should start by actually enforcing the laws that we have on the books. LEOs aren't being held accountable for their failures in enforcing law, and in turn the conversation instead switches to gun control.
1 AlcoholicOwl 2018-03-26
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a 16 year old own a gun in America? If they're responsible enough to own something as dangerous as a firearm, how are they not able to debate the legislation regarding it?
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
As far as I know no state allows you to own a gun unless you are 18+.
1 AlcoholicOwl 2018-03-26
Just checked, it does vary and most states require 18+ unless you're an exception. Rural Minnesota sells to 14+ without parental consent, then in 5 other states you are able to buy a gun at 16+, 4 of them allowing you to buy rifles. Even if it's 18 and over, that's close enough to 16 that you should be allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Not very far apparently.
1 petethemeat77 2018-03-26
They could be gifted one from a parent. To buy a firearm is the U.S. you have to be 18 for a rifle and 21 for a pistol.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
Why would you bet that? A teenager cannot be educated on an issue in which they’re passionate about? To degree in which it is a problem in America, gun violence isn’t rocket science. We have an ever loving shitload of guns, available to anybody who wants one and, remarkably, often that goes poorly. It’s a pretty good start to say strategically and intelligently lowering those numbers and availability would help- as it does literally everywhere on planet earth.
1 ganooosh 2018-03-26
100%. It's disgusting.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
What about conservative Christians and pro lifers using their toddlers who don't even know their abc's yet to hold hateful signs at clinics it other points of protest? Because I kind of think they have been using children to push an agenda for a bit longer
1 Kosarev 2018-03-26
Or the anti vaccination campaigns, that have quite a lot of supporters in this sub.
1 sydewayzsoundz 2018-03-26
Anyone using their kids as pawns to further an agenda is a piece if shit.
1 traflac 2018-03-26
No children should have to perform your "woke" political actions. I picketed abortion clinics before I knew what my dick was for.
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Ahhh, good old fashioned projection then.
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-03-26
That is correct, they should not have to but since our leaders will not they have to.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
So, to be clear, you are saying you are against anyone asking/forcing children to protest or just left-leaning peoples?
1 traflac 2018-03-26
Anyone. My 8 year old self had no business holding a sign protesting an issue I could not possibly understand. This post is not about teenagers, it is about adults who use them for their innocence.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
"Something has to be done about the babies that are dying"
"Something has to be done about the young men and women that are dying"
As life progresses, does it become less worthy of being protected?
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
the amount of up votes this has ON THIS SUB lets you know that this site is truly lost. abandon ship
1 rrtangent 2018-03-26
Why is that?
1 garyp714 2018-03-26
Oh no! the right wingers that took over the sub are losing their grip as the lefties come back.
1 Infinitezen 2018-03-26
Please go away forever, you do nothing but piss in the public pool and then get made when people call you out.
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
So if you agree with the movement its ok, if you dont agree with the movement its "an agenda"
You guys are cowards who are afraid of debate
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Are you expecting these "cowards" to debate the children being forced to protest and carry signs that their Mommy made for them? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the real cowards here are the parents.
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
I wasn't aware they was being forced. Any source on this?
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Just feelings, as is the norm with these guys.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Yes, my source is common sense. What is your source that says these kids are protesting by their own free-will? Do you really think those kids stopped buying Tide-pods long enough to pay for all those buses to get them there?
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
He meant an actual source. Not feelings
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
This is typical of the Left to require a source like the NYTimes to tell them exact what & how to think instead of using their own common sense. I said, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" but I guess it does takes someone with an IQ higher than a Leftist. Apparently.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
What if your "common sense" is wrong? All I'm asking for is proof for your claim. A citation. I'm not asking for feelings.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Try thinking for yourself. Seriously, try it sometime.
1 Sonoma_Coma 2018-03-26
So no proof, just what you think may be true
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
I have lots of proof that Neo-Liberal Hillary-supporters, still grieving over the biggest Presidential upset in history, are incapable of thinking for themselves without the some "source" like the NYTimes telling how to think. Just look ITT.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
So no source?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
The irony in your comments is astonishing.
1 Bk1n_ 2018-03-26
The problem is pretty simple.. You say "I thought critically and I come to conclusion A" someone else say "I thought critically and came to conclusion B".. Who's right? This is why sources matter.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking for yourself, but to think all sources are the NYTimes is idiotic.
1 garyp714 2018-03-26
There's got to be a middle ground between 'thinking for yourself' and believing any old idea that pops into your head?
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
Try doing research. Seriously, might do you wonders.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
I've read the Federalist papers. Obviously you, and your child leaders, haven't. That's why you need some journalist to tell you what to think. Try doing you own research, think for yourself, even if it's just one time.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
So why do you have a problem with citations then? I mean if you have evidence, it's easy to show it.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
First show me your citations that I'm wrong. I mean if you have evidence, it's easy to show it.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
You're the one making a claim. Sorry that your feelings keep getting hurt.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
You made the claim that I was wrong. Sorry that your feelings keep getting hurt.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
So it's your job to provide proof. Surely if it was "common sense" you could easily do it.
1 MistryMachine3 2018-03-26
I personally know parents whose children insisted their family goes to this march. I don't know why you think everybody that disagrees with you were "brainwashed"
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Yass, we should all listen to the children tell us which constitution rights we should throw away. And we should definitely not listen to President Drumpf because he's inexperienced! WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!!?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 MistryMachine3 2018-03-26
I didn't say we should blindly listen to children. I just disagree with your opinion that everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed. That isn't how you encourage healthy debate.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
A "healthy debate" with a child about constitutional rights. HAHAHAHAHA!!!
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
says... the one acting like a child.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
You realize they're nearly 18 right? Like they're allowed to have opinions.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Ah, and there it is..."Why are you attacking the children?!?!" HAHAHAHA!!!
So predicable.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
I'm saying they aren't children.... Reading isn't your strongest suit huh?
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
Except they are children.
She lost. Get over it. And move on with your life. Maybe think about getting a real job instead of attacking Americans online for $.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
So I brought up Clinton? Can you show me where? >Except they are children. I have a job (fun fact I Reddit after work too)
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
Also just made another $5 in Soros cash. Thanks.
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
At least you admit it.
1 Zwicker101 2018-03-26
Just made another $5.
1 Bk1n_ 2018-03-26
I don't understand why the 2nd amendment is being "thrown away"? Reformed guns laws != taking all the guns
1 ClayBigsby 2018-03-26
https://i.redd.it/cierdg0n14o01.jpg
1 chewbaklava 2018-03-26
pretty standard right wing reactionary stuff.
right wing: people need to exercise their constitutional rights!
students protest for gun control
right wing: no! not like that! you're obviously a big government shill! you need to respect and not question America or the constitution!
1 HyBReD 2018-03-26
I support a strong gun debate. I support marches like these. I don't support a platform built on children that these politicians and Hollywood actors don't actually respect int he slightest but are simply using for political gain.
"How dare you protest these poor innocent children."
1 chewbaklava 2018-03-26
okay, so this is the talking point among right-wing reactionaries, yet what is the proof? also, i think it's a little delusional to claim that these protests are part of some grand hollywood scheme to outlaw guns. like, if you take 1 second to look at the organizer's platform, you can see its pretty watered down, centerist bs.
also, why does their matter? and who is saying its a gold standard? like, these teenagers are protesting something they feel passionately about and all people can say is basically "shut up you're too young to know anything" honestly, if you want some kind of real change to happen, it needs to be cohesive, and obviously middle-aged dolts are supper reactionary. your cynicism is saddening.
1 HyBReD 2018-03-26
Just because it's the reality doesn't exactly make it a talking point. This is a conclusion I came to on my own as did many others. If these politicians want to attack the 2nd amendment, grow some balls and go after it. They won't though, because it's political suicide. But you know what isn't? Giving teenagers a pat on the back for doing just that. It's so transparent it's sickening.
It's the 'gold standard' because it's how the left is able to attack guns while more or less keeping their hands clean. They aren't attacking guns, they're supporting kids! I don't want them to shut up, I want the media to stop putting them on a pedestal when just 2 months go they were worried they were going to commit genocide with tide pods.
1 chewbaklava 2018-03-26
you keep talking about them "attacking" the 2nd amendment. how long are you guys gonna keep banging that drum for? in what world has the government, since sandy hook and even before, done ANYTHING to guns? this gun-owner victim fetish is ridiculous because in the real world, nothing is happening.
teenagers, and let's not forget millions of other adults, are protesting to stop the deaths of other kids and other americans, and yet all you people can do is say "THE HOLLYWEIRD ELITES ARE USING THEM AS PAWNS! BAHHH THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUUNSS! IM SERIOUS THIS TIME!"
yet, nothing happens, and you keep playing right into the NRA's hands. you guys are so dense you can't even see how the NRA is exploiting your rambo cosplay fantasy towards their own end: making money and buying politicians.
get over your victim complex and see the reality: if these kids were protesting against gun control, you would be fine with it being kids and you'd see nothing wrong with it.
just admit that all the genuflecting is a long winded rant against something you don't like, not against the fact that they're "kids" -- tho i reject the idea that the age of someone discounts they're ability to have an individual opinion.
1 HyBReD 2018-03-26
No my opinion would not change in the slightest. Kids are retards, I don't want the media putting them in front of any side an issue of this scale. Again, this is the same group of people the entire media chased for a straight month over fucking tide pods. You cannot in one breath warn every parent in the United States that their kids might eat a pod of laundry detergent and then in the following breath call that same group of people the most insightful generation.
For me this is less about the gun debate and more about how the media is yet again playing sides and changing narratives when it suits their goals.
1 Vault32 2018-03-26
Falsi uck you if you create meme magic bullshit to sew hatred against a kid and use that to push your agenda. Photoshopping the constitution is lame enough but they squashed and contrasted her face, darkened her eyes and widened her nose. Subltoe enough that you wouldn't notice without the real pic. That's more than an anti gun control agenda.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/fake-images-parkland-shooting-survivor-emma-gonzalez-tearing/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook
1 i_saw_a_moose 2018-03-26
Anyone who has spent any amount of time working with teenagers as an adult finds the idea of them being the intellectual or moral compass of our nation completely ridiculous. Teenagers are irrational, emotionally driven, and programmed through mass schooling to fall in line with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
Basically if you think that using teenagers to convince anyone besides other teenagers to change their minds on guns is a good strategy I have a beautiful ocean front property I'd love to sell you, here in Kansas.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
As a teenager I was never interested in politics, so I admire the trend and hope it continues into their adult years.
I agree with you that teens are in many ways inferior to adults, but at the same time our current generation of teens are more well-informed than any generation before them.
With this being an issue that directly impacts many of them, I find that it makes sense for them to vocalize their opinions.
I don't feel like they're trying to change people's minds on guns. I feel like they're trying to direct attention toward this issue that loads of people are dying and nothing seems to be done about it, no matter how many times it happens.
1 i_saw_a_moose 2018-03-26
What do you base this on? Don't just say the internet. Having access to the internet is not the same as being informed. Again, youthful exuberance and optimism is great, but the truth is mass schooling is indoctrination and programming. The further out you get from that indoctrination the more you will understand.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
You don't agree that technology has helped enable us all, even teens, to become well informed? Some of the most profound things I know came from YouTube, Wikipedia, and Coursera.
It seems like you're saying that because violent incidents imply we should make changes you may not be in favor of, those incidents are a farce. Does that sound right?
1 i_saw_a_moose 2018-03-26
No I did not say anything close to that. Also it takes time to find correct info on a tool like YouTube/internet at large (it is large).
Conspiracy theories are ignored precisely because there is so much utter shit out there. I do not think a 16 year old, or an 18 year old without proper guidance can find the truth because our schooling actively works against the development of reason.
The development of your ability to reason, and think critically for yourself is crucial to your ability to decipher truth from lies, emotional manipulation from sound rational evidence.
Until you have worked to develop your critical thinking skills (learned to think entirely for yourself) you like most everyone else will be unable to have even the most tenuous grasp on reality.
The truth remains that it is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Most people won't even look at anything that disagrees with their worldview, and those who do come only to mock that which they do not understand.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
That makes a lot of sense. How did you come up with this? It seems really well thought out
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Sounds a lot like the vocal populations of this sub.
1 YouDownWithFSB 2018-03-26
straight up propaganda lies for ideology
fucking sickening
1 Burra-Hobbit 2018-03-26
You mean people support the constitution? Oh my goodness they must be stopped!
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-03-26
Human shields. Just like they use Jews, gays, blacks, immigrants...
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
Yup. Pretty genius actually. Hide behind “oppressed groups” and you never have to defend your bullshit. Just call the opposition racist/sexist/homophobic and move on.
1 Vulco 2018-03-26
she needs to get the fuck out of america if she doesn't like the constitution. send her ass to mexico and she'll learn a few quick lessons about gun control.
1 DagothNereviar 2018-03-26
What, like that most Mexicans get their guns from America because it's easier than trying to get them in Mexico?
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
I think that's what he's saying - they're more accessible here but Mexico has the bigger gun issue
1 TDMAC14 2018-03-26
Or Cuba, seeing as she was wearing its flag on her arm.
1 chewbaklava 2018-03-26
totally sane not at all mad and reactionary response to people exercising their constitutional right to protest. you can't say you love the constitution while at the time same time condemning people for using rights protected in it. there are more amendments than the 2nd ICYMI.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-03-26
Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are pretty worthless. As it is, most of them have been stripped already after 911.
The 2nd Amendment is the Insurance Policy to stop the Government from violating the rest of our rights.
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
"Our rights have been completely eroded already!"
"The 2nd Amendment is the only thing safeguarding our rights!"
Math checks out.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-03-26
I see we have a smart ass.
Most people don’t realize how bad it is. You’re in a conspiracy forum so awareness is higher here. I think if the nation at large understood how many of our rights have already been infringed, they wouldn’t be so eager to support stripping the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is Freedom of Speech. We’re the only nation in the world that guarantees that right. Why? The 2nd Amendment.
Guess who all of these protesters are going to hide behind when the shit hits the fan?
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
False. Japan's constitution guarantees free speech and has insanely strict gun laws.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-03-26
The United States wrote the Japanese Constitution. It was enacted after we won the war.
Their “free speech” is going in the same direction as ours now. The state has been suppressing free speech and freedom of the press through press clubs that guarantee that the State is in control of the narrative.
The US also disarmed Japan. We even forced them to turn over their swords. They couldn’t even have a proper military until recently.
1 cajual 2018-03-26
You want guns to overthrow the government but the government is the one that employs all the grunt style "operators". You're spinning so hard I have no idea what you're trying to say. Being a far right conservative must be fucking tiring when trying to weave through all these narratives.
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-03-26
I never said anything about overthrowing the government.
I’m also not a far right conservative because I believe in the constitution and the right to arm yourself.
But go ahead and love and trust the government. See how that works out.
1 chewbaklava 2018-03-26
this is such an insane and, again, reactionary reading of the consitution. like, honestly, you think some militia of fat dads LARPing as navy seals are gonna stop shit?
just admit you're mad online about kids saying something you don't like. stop trying to make it out like some grand intellectual point, not the grandpa yelling from his porch like it is.
1 Vulco 2018-03-26
but murica. also dont rip up the dang cangstitution or i rip off your head.
1 FunHegemon 2018-03-26
I guess you also believe the Seahawks were setting American Flags on fire in the locker room.
Now I see why they do it, it actually fools some people.
1 Vulco 2018-03-26
yeah that probably happened l0l
1 zwei_und_zwei 2018-03-26
How ironic. The picture you are referring to was photoshoped by people using children to push their agenda.
https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/977959864042491905
1 Vulco 2018-03-26
quit trolling
1 hinkleyrp 2018-03-26
The interesting ironic part about this tactic being used, along with the Nazi rhetoric is the use of politicalized children. Its a page directly out of the Nazi playbook. Welcome everyone to Hitler's Youth 2.0 (now with WiFi)
1 steveinaccounting 2018-03-26
Wasn't just the Nazis. I believe it was done by Stalin and Mao as well.
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
but somehow those are fine and hitler was the only bad guy
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Wow RIP to the six people who believe that I guess.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Yeah I think it's been done by literally every political group in the past century. Even people you agree with. It doesn't make you a dictator.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Do you honestly believe that these kids, with the support of some democrats, holding a rally devoted to a single issue, is the same as the Hitler Youth program?
Or do you just enjoy comparing things to Hitler, knowing that since you're doing it to left wingers nobody is going to mock you for it (like when right wingera mock liberals who compare Trump to Hitler?)
1 hinkleyrp 2018-03-26
Any kid under 18 being used politically on either side is suspect since their being manipulated doesn't matter if its right, left or upside down. Kids don't belong being political side shows. Let them privately grieve and adults should do a better job of protecting them regardless of which side they are on.
1 TrevTerror 2018-03-26
Agreed. It's a sad tactic used by those who are failing miserably. This and the shame tactics they use are very adolescent.
1 HerrMancini 2018-03-26
Like insisting all people who disagree with you politically are pedophiles and Satanic baby eaters?
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
well, is that what you are? gtfo
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
well, i know u r but what am i? gtfo
1 TrevTerror 2018-03-26
Exactly
1 Tunderbar1 2018-03-26
But how else are we supposed to push extremely controversial, restrictive, and unconstitutional laws on the masses and limit their ability to protest, other than putting innocent children forward as our innocent and unchallengeable spokespeople?
/sarc
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Yea, was pretty gross when the NRA trotted out that kid spouting his dad's talking points. Fortunately, they didnt think it through.
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
what fucking planet are you on? or are you just a very good troll?
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
holy fucking shit what happened to this sub?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Invaded. lol.
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
this site is bought out. it sucks. even the conspiracy forum seems like the MSM
1 javi404 2018-03-26
It's a lost cause I think. what a shame. and in the last 24 hours it seems to have gone full retard.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
trumptard
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Can you please elaborate on how your post makes any sense at all?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
this sub has gone full trumptard.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Are you sure? Considering conspiracy people are usually pro keeping rights and critical of the government, there has been a suspiciously high traffic of pro 2nd amendment abolishers and pro government posts in here with the voting to go with it.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
I have only seen people that are in favor of more sensible gun laws posting and the trumptards acting a fool.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
Can you point out specific comments that actually say they want to abolish the 2nd amendment?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Not right now because I'm going to make a cocktail and watch a movie. Cheers!
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
sure.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
come meet us in /r/drunk
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
I dont drink during the week.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
too bad for you.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
is it bad to be healthy? who knew!
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Well you can drink in moderation.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
how often do you drink
1 javi404 2018-03-26
One drink every 3 months.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
and what is the point?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Of what?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
having one drink every three months.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
You tell me.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
So you are using deflection to not answer my question? My guess is you drink everyday but just embarrassed to admit you have a problem.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
I have no shame my friend. I'm just not taking your bait.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
I simply asked a legitimate question
1 javi404 2018-03-26
And you want what?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
I asked what is the point of drinking once every 3 months
1 javi404 2018-03-26
You want the point?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
Yes.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
The point of drinking alcohol is to get drunk.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
you get drunk off one drink?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
bottle
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
so you drank a bottle last night with your movie?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
This conversation is taking too long. Gimme a phone number to call. I'll fill you in on all the details.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
866-247-4838
1 javi404 2018-03-26
I called, they said you were not allowed to take calls. Lets try next week.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
Liar.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Shill account?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
Trumptard account?
1 javi404 2018-03-26
No, Russian bot.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
There’s a difference?
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
they can help you brother, seriously. alcoholism is a serious disease.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
It is so serious you are afraid to give me your phone number. I appreciate the concern my friend, I really do, but you don't know me, I don't know you, and you would spend our time and efforts somewhere else.
1 mistakilgor 2018-03-26
(more deflection)
1 gfunkenstein 2018-03-26
This sub used to be real. Now it’s just trump people doing trump things.
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
It's okay to not give a shit about crisis actors, shills and political puppets
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Totally agreed! Good thing none of those are present or relevant in this current debate.
1 javi404 2018-03-26
Here is the audio of the teachers planning it, brainwashing the students:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/873b5y/audio_of_broward_county_teachers_planning_illegal/
http://adam.curry.com/enc/1521747916.271_browardcountyteachersplanningillegalmarchwithgiffordsorg.mp3
1 javi404 2018-03-26
The same people pushing this agenda, worried about kids getting killed, are the same people that are pro abortion, where fetuses are killed.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Some are. Some aren't. Personally I have a great deal of respect for the folks who have a consistent pro-life stance: no death penalty, no abortion, no guns. (That is, I respect them even though I'm not one of them--I have more nuanced positions on each of those issues).
1 javi404 2018-03-26
I understand completely, it is just the hypocrisy that stands out.
I am all for keeping the 2nd amendment and I am also OK with abortion.
1 SquareShapeCloud 2018-03-26
cough pizzagate
1 IggysGlove 2018-03-26
I agree. But everybody loves those laws named after some dead kid.
We don't like those anymore now? I never liked any of them.
1 TumidTax 2018-03-26
Fuck you, pizzagate cunt.
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-03-26
Rule 10
1 happyfootzes 2018-03-26
My niece and nephew marched. Unless they are cleverly hiding something from their uncle, the only agenda I saw was them wanting to feel safe in school. No one is using them. Their generation is finding their voice and they are learning to use it. I'm proud of them.
1 I_POOP_CONSTANTLY 2018-03-26
Bullshit. Who pulled the permit to march? Hint: DNC/Democrat PACs, not kids
1 happyfootzes 2018-03-26
The fact that an organization stepped in to help, doesn't delegitimize their movement. They asked my sister to take time off of work and to take them to D.C. It was not her idea. It was not mine, it was theirs. She's a good parent, providing the resources for them to exercise the first Amendment rights.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
What difference does it make who pulled the permit? If a high school football team is awesome and wins their game, do we say they don't deserve the credit and question their passion for the sport on the basis that adults built the stadium and paid for the lights to be turned on?
1 I_POOP_CONSTANTLY 2018-03-26
Because it was organized by Dems during an election year. It’s not organic, not child led. It’s propaganda
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Dang, you're right. Just like those damn coaches, principals, and community leaders trot out their high school football teams in the fall (very suspicious timing if you ask me) when they want to bring pride, glory, and funding to their schools and communities. Now there's a conspiracy!
1 I_POOP_CONSTANTLY 2018-03-26
AstroTurf is the only thing those two have in common
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Gotta give credit where it’s due—that’s clever. Well played :)
1 ijustwantedtopostthi 2018-03-26
These kids are protesting the very object that they should rely on to defend their-selves and their liberty.
Millions of innocent people have died in the Iraq Afghanistan war, if they want to protest something, protest that.
Not the fucking object that was half the reason our forefathers fought a war over, the right to bare arms.
Of all the things to protest over, of course it would be something that has a 1 in a billion chance of happening to them, as long as they dont see dying people across the world, why would any of them every give a flying fuck it doesnt have a direct impact in their lives.
1 happyfootzes 2018-03-26
No, I'll tell you want they want
They want the gun loophole closed. As a gun own, I too want that closed.
That want to fix the NICS databases. As a hunter, I too want to see the system that was created to keep guns out of mentally unstable, actually do it job.
They want to raise age to buy guns to 21. If that's what their generation wants. If they find the poltical capiltal to make this a law. Have ait it.
You are forgetting what is actually written in our Constitutions.
No where does it say that it just be easy for mentally ill to buy guns
1 miketitan 2018-03-26
I can assure the average teen doesn't know anything about a "gun loophole" or NICS databases. Maybe they recognize the words now they hear the talking heads on TV repeat it over and over, but these are not things you discuss organically as a teenager. They are doing this because at this very moment, it is the "cool" thing to do. As I can recall from being one, teens do not have a good perspective on the long term, and have NO real understanding of what the long term repercussions may be for trying to alter a Constitutional Right.
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
This sub is now anti guns. Think about that.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Great username! Greetings from the UT Campus, where I'm sitting here furiously typing away on Reddit instead of preparing for the BLAW class I have to teach tomorrow :)
This is not about being "anti Second Amendment". It is about calling for regulations that are permitted within the context and scope of the Second Amendment.
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
So you just admitted those laws are already in place. Would you admit that if they restricted everything but muskets that would be a violation of the second amendment? An AR 15 is a semi automatic weapon. 90% or more of the weapons sold are semi automatic. The police do not use revolvers because long ago they were deemed insufficient. The new billHR 5087 bans lever action weapons!!! This is not gun control, it is an attack on the second amendment disguised as a " dangerous gun" ban.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I didn't "admit" anything; I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court has indicated that certain kinds of restrictions on gun ownership are Constitutional--meaning that some additional ones can be implemented without infringing on the rights articulated by the Second Amendment.
The "everything but muskets" thing is also resolved with a fair amount of finality in Heller, where Scalia sets forth the boundaries of the Second Amendment rights as it pertains to type of weapons permitted by the Constitution. In essence, he summarizes a long line of jurisprudence that says that the Second Amendment limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
So, no, I don't think a blanket ban on semi-automatic firearms would be constitutional (in point of fact, I am legally carrying a concealed semi-automatic handgun at this very moment).
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
So what's the difference with an AR 15. Exactly the same thing. Semi automatic no difference. Your handgun kills far more people every year but your fine with that. The Virginia school shooter used your weapon to kill 30. You need to give up your gun.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
I never said I thought AR-15s should be banned.
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
But that's what the current solution is HR5087. So what is your point.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Literally nobody--other than you--has said a single thing about HR 5087.
My point is that there can and should be modest, Constitutional, and common-sense regulation of dangerous articles--that gun owner/operators should be subject to similar regulations as other participants in dangerous activities: training, background checks, registration, and limitations on the kinds of equipment non-professionals can have in their possession.
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
There already is so what is your point.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
The current regulations in these areas--to the extent they exist at all--are a complete joke and must be strengthened. There are zero requirements for background checks or registration if I want to purchase a high-capacity, high-caliber semiautomatic rifle in a private transaction. My concealed carry license "training" and evaluations could have been passed by a Neanderthal. Better regulations and better implementation are imperative.
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
"how is that akin to tearing up the constitution" your words. Try reading what you write.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Please show me where I wrote the words "how is that akin to tearing up the constitution".
1 SmedleysButler 2018-03-26
Try reading you own post.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
No no no...you try reading it. Show me where I said those words.
You can't. Because I didn't.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Any luck finding where I wrote what you've alleged?
1 notcyberpope 2018-03-26
You can quote Supreme Court Justices all you want but it doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Au contraire, amigo. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is, by definition, the final and authoritative statement on what is and isn't "Constitutional".
1 notcyberpope 2018-03-26
From a legal system standpoint, sure. They are the top level of a hierarchy and that's it. They have no special ability of judgement and infact show a complete lack of it with a regular basis. It's almost like the ruling that police have no duty to protect is what started the latest gun control debate in the first place. Weird how that works.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
They are certainly not perfect, but with the exception of Justice Thomas, they are all exceedingly intelligent people who have committed their entire adult lives to the study and analysis of extremely complex legal matters. So yeah, they do have a "special ability of judgment" which I respect even when I'm displeased with the outcome of cases that go before them (again, with the exception of Justice Thomas, who is about as intelligent and intellectually curious as a toad).
But even putting that aside, under our Constitution, their position at the top of the hierarchy set out by that document is of paramount importance: you can disagree with them all you want, but you have to abide with their rules or become an outlaw.
You are of course free to go live somewhere with lower levels of regulation around gun use and ownership, but I suspect you won't find the Central African Republic or Baghdad very hospitable, and Mars has proven really difficult to get to, so...for all practical purposes, the Supreme Court is the last word on the subject for you, brah.
1 notcyberpope 2018-03-26
It's funny how you argue rules of law yet your final arguement is "submit to force or die". Which really sums up what you and your cohorts are really about. Can't let that ounce of control slip away.
Do you find it weird or offputting that all those supreme court justices you seem to respect and admire all went to Harvard or Yale? Does it bother you that Yale and Harvard alumni are responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of millions? How good of a judgement do you have if you can't help but associate with subhuman murderers? I guess when it comes down to it the law only applies to the wealthy.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Where did I even remotely suggest that the only options are to "submit to force or die"? At most I said that you must submit to the law or become a criminal, which is of course an inescapable fact.
I don't really know where to start on your second point (to the extent there is a coherent point in that mishmash of words). But I'll try:
I will admit that I know a ton of people who went to Harvard and Yale, but to the best of my knowledge none of them has ever killed anyone.
I do think that I'd rather have the body responsible for interpreting the law be made up of people who have committed their lives to studying the law rather than random people off the streets. Even better if they were guided in that study by previous generations of smart people who committed their lives to the study of the law.
as to your final sentence, I agree 100% that the law applies to the wealthy, as you point out. But I would also argue that day-to-day life shows that it applies with equal force--if not more force--to the average or underprivileged.
1 funkadelik89 2018-03-26
Sure, it must be the fault of guns.
It couldn't have anything to do with: 1)The police standing down, actively allowing the shooter to go on a spree. 2)The FBI stood down, the shooter was already known to the government as a potential threat. 3)Another SSRI-connected mass killing. The media can't talk about those because they are the largest paid advertisers and the politicians can't talk about them because they are some of the highest donors to campaigns.
Guns are the easy red-herring, to emasculate the population and to keep them under control.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
All of the things you mentioned are potential contributing factors and should be examined. The lack of sensible regulation around gun ownership and use--not a "ban", mind you--is another factor.
Many people, including some kids, are pushing for that factor to be addressed because they feel strongly about it. Just as you are free to prioritize action around the other factors you described.
If anything, this argument around "emasculating the population" and keeping us under control is the real red herring in this debate. If the United States government, with its immense firepower, manpower, intelligence apparatus, wanted to take all of us gun owners out, they could do so in a heartbeat. No amount of armchair John Wayne "pew pew pew" with our pissant 1911s and AR-15s would stop the strongest military and law enforcement complex in the history of mankind.
1 funkadelik89 2018-03-26
The numbers don't work out in the establishment's favor. Only a couple million active soldiers versus 50 million gun owners, not even taking in to account that most of the military would refuse to take down their own citizenry.
Guns are the easiest right to attack because they have a "fear-factor" associated with them. If we willingly give away most of our 2nd amendment rights, how does that look when people want to start attacking our other constitutional rights?
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Nobody is asking you to give away any Second Amendment rights(well, maybe some people are, but they're dumb).Sensible people (a group I'd like to think I'm part of) simply want a limited measure of reasonable, modest, and constitutional regulations put in place to reduce harm from dangerous articles and activities.
1 funkadelik89 2018-03-26
What new legislation would prevent these types of disasters? We already have a whole slew of legislation that could have prevented the Parkland massacre that failed to protect the children.
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
This sub is now infected with people from the likes of r/politics pretending to be conspiracy researchers and r/conspiracy regulars.
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
Horse hockey. I've been on (and loved, and still love) this sub for years. I've said it before, and I'll say again until it starts to sink in: just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a shill.
1 SugusMax 2018-03-26
Your opinion, while correct, is sadly very unpopular nowadays. It's just so much easier to claim people who disagree with you are "paid bots" or shills and just throw whatever noncoherent shit around without any explanation. Classic Reddit.
1 CosmicOwly 2018-03-26
No it is not.
1 TXhorn4life 2018-03-26
No it’s not says guy who posts nothing but liberal propaganda.
1 everythingwas19 2018-03-26
Just noting a new tactic seems to be claiming this sub is full of children and teenagers. Such lame insults too, similar to "jfc what are you 12 years old" "I don't respond to 14 year olds" etc.
Pretty lame but also pretty funny considering the people saying these insults are the same ones claiming these March For Our Lives children are brilliant and going to change the world...
1 808s_and_cupcakes 2018-03-26
"You're arguing with children on Reddit" is also being thrown around quite a bit.
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
It's pretty amusing that, in the end, they couldn't even get the college kids to fully buy their bullshit.
They had to drop down to grade school children who have no clue whatsoever how the world works; no clue that their government has been hijacked by murderous psychopaths who stage shootings & terrorist attacks to accelerate the conversion of the U.S. to a corporate police state.
1 CosmicOwly 2018-03-26
You do know that teenagers can and do have political options right?
1 ATXNYCESQ 2018-03-26
No. You can only have an opinion if you're over the age of 18. The one exception is that if you are under 18 and get shot and killed; in that case you are permitted an opinion, but to date all such minors have been silent on the issue of gun control.
1 Jonasbrotherslover11 2018-03-26
How is this a conspiracy? Another dull boring political post yawn
1 Bongstradamus 2018-03-26
You mean like using kids to pass laws that discriminate against other Americans? We cant allow gay marriage after all....THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
....Isn't gay marriage federally legalized in the USA? Your post doesn't make any sense.
1 latrans8 2018-03-26
You must be young.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
...So gay marriage isn't legal in the USA?
1 Bongstradamus 2018-03-26
It’s protected under the Constitution as a result of equal protection not federally legalized. Huge difference. Before the Supreme Court made a decision states passed laws banning gay marriage and used the argument of “protect our children” to get those laws to pass.
That wouldn’t make sense to you if you weren’t paying attention to the issue.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
I don't care if gay people get married, so no I wasn't paying attention. What I am curious about though is how something can be protected under the constitution but be illegal at the same time?
1 Bongstradamus 2018-03-26
The Supreme Court had to specify that gay marriage was legal under the equal protection clause. There is no law or amendment that specifically says gay marriage is legal, there is the equal protection clause which says that all citizens must be treated equally under the law and have their rights to legal due process. So in the absence of legislation that specified gay marriage, states had the latitude to make laws. They passed those laws, they got challenged as unconstiutional since they treated gay citizens different than married citizens, and since marriage is a legal institution recognized by the state falls under legal due process. So denying gay citizens the right to marriage violated their equal protection and due process rights. The Supreme Court agreed those laws violated their rights as citizens and that rendered state and federal laws that sought to discriminate against gay citizens to be unconstitutional.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
Thank you for explaining.
1 peacemomma 2018-03-26
How is this even a relevant conspiracy post? No intelligent submission, just a profanity laden opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion yes, but so are the kids who are tired of being killed at school, which I can only assume is the reason for this post because you don’t even offer that much of an explanation. If you think that their participation in protests is a conspiracy lay out some solid facts and present them in a way that doesn’t ignore that 1 -teens are supposed to rebel against society, it’s what teens have always done, and 2- teens also express opinions for and against abortion, immigration laws, religious freedom, drug legalization etc etc etc.
1 JayPx4 2018-03-26
I think it's safe to say that any kid who is tired of being killed at school is part of something much larger. ...Like human cloning or vampires.
1 peacemomma 2018-03-26
Maybe they’re all Reptilians!
1 ro4sho 2018-03-26
How retro!
1 aznscourge 2018-03-26
Hmm a 10 year old account that just started posting last month. HMMMMMMMMMM
1 OmeronX 2018-03-26
Says the dota player. HMMMMMMMMMMM
1 ronintetsuro 2018-03-26
Paid bait. Yawn and downvote.
1 NagevegaN 2018-03-26
It's pretty amusing that, in the end, they couldn't even get the college kids to fully buy their bullshit.
They had to drop down to grade school children who have no clue whatsoever how the world works; no clue that their government has been hijacked by murderous psychopaths who stage shootings & terrorist attacks to accelerate the conversion of the U.S. to a corporate police state.
1 nuttmeg8 2018-03-26
Yeah! Fuck those Pro-Lifers!!
1 Butter8675 2018-03-26
My grandson stevie wears dresses now. I told him not to visit me anymore and he cried. He is a pedopile.
1 teamguy89 2018-03-26
Maybe uhh the children that escaped the massacre feel compelled to act. And uhh maybe they’re being misguided by organizations, but nonetheless these kids want to really change something. And I don’t think they really know what they want to change but ya know uhh banning guns is just the first thing people latch onto as a panacea.
1 CoinSurfer1 2018-03-26
Having children march in a pro-gender dysphoria parade should be criminal. Imagine taking your kids to a schizophrenia parade because you think it’s now the “in” thing.
1 FartfullyYours 2018-03-26
Christ, don't give the pharmaceutical industry any ideas.
1 ViviREbirth 2018-03-26
Your profile says 10 year club but your oldest comment is from 3 weeks ago. What gives?
1 peacemomma 2018-03-26
I wondered that too
1 FartfullyYours 2018-03-26
History cleansing scripts would be my guess.
1 RMFN 2018-03-26
That's too bad.
1 SuperIceCreamCrash 2018-03-26
I'm very pro-abortion in that case. What kind of shitty life are you giving that kid if you're forcing the parent to have them?
1 traponthereal 2018-03-26
Let a loving family adopt it then instead of killing it? Not a hard concept.
1 Monakh 2018-03-26
That's the last person you'd want having a kid. Why would you be anti-abortion in that case?
1 ANTIFARULEZ 2018-03-26
That shouldn't be your decision nor your business TBH.
1 0xnull 2018-03-26
The law says abortions are legal, so why aren't all those doctors charged with murder?
1 yourepenis 2018-03-26
Weird i dont remember saying that?
1 McJigglets 2018-03-26
Well that’s the argument right? No one is gonna foot the bill for these fetuses, so why not kill em?
1 PM_me_killer_chess 2018-03-26
Adoption?
1 techntoke 2018-03-26
It is true, you want me to send you a link so that you can cry about it?
1 GobBluth19 2018-03-26
why are you so triggered?
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-03-26
Rule 10
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
Children are not fit to decide on their own about everything. Having an opinion and having power to change are two entirely different things. They have not seen the world and have no life experience. Much of their knowledge is what they are told and learn from others. They are prone to false impression and at young age are fighting to find their own ideology and standards. Let children be children and leave decisions to adults.
1 thegeneraldisarray 2018-03-26
What about inner city schools that are violent and disruptive to what you just stated? Or are those just glossed over because they're not high-profile enough?
I live in a bad neighborhood. My male roommate was gone all weekend. You bet we have guns, and not for no reason. We've had people come up on our property threatening us just because we tell their kids to stop throwing things at our dog. We look out our back window into the alley and see people having sex in their cars, using that space to drop off/strip stolen cars, do drugs, etc. Sorry, but the laws on the books need to be enforced and kids in schools that are disruptive need to be disciplined, not coddled because they're the wrong skin color and their parents will sue the schools for racism.
1 Kosarev 2018-03-26
Or the anti vaccination campaigns, that have quite a lot of supporters in this sub.
1 FlyThai 2018-03-26
I wasn't aware they was being forced. Any source on this?
1 sydewayzsoundz 2018-03-26
Anyone using their kids as pawns to further an agenda is a piece if shit.
1 traflac 2018-03-26
No children should have to perform your "woke" political actions. I picketed abortion clinics before I knew what my dick was for.
1 trumplethinskins 2018-03-26
Ahhh, good old fashioned projection then.
1 IMA_Catholic 2018-03-26
That is correct, they should not have to but since our leaders will not they have to.
1 MusicandWrestling 2018-03-26
So, to be clear, you are saying you are against anyone asking/forcing children to protest or just left-leaning peoples?
1 steveinaccounting 2018-03-26
Wasn't just the Nazis. I believe it was done by Stalin and Mao as well.
1 coogzzz 2018-03-26
"Something has to be done about the babies that are dying"
"Something has to be done about the young men and women that are dying"
As life progresses, does it become less worthy of being protected?
1 shassamyak 2018-03-26
These are comments made by you. On some people shaming tactics don't work. I have been on this sub long enough to see third class people like you weekly for years.
Get a life and if possible few friends also. It will help with your loneliness and may cool you. You don't like my comments downvote and move on but don't indulge like a petty bastard.
1 Commies_Suck 2018-03-26
the amount of up votes this has ON THIS SUB lets you know that this site is truly lost. abandon ship
1 Apersonofinterest666 2018-03-26
I see we have a smart ass.
Most people don’t realize how bad it is. You’re in a conspiracy forum so awareness is higher here. I think if the nation at large understood how many of our rights have already been infringed, they wouldn’t be so eager to support stripping the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is Freedom of Speech. We’re the only nation in the world that guarantees that right. Why? The 2nd Amendment.
Guess who all of these protesters are going to hide behind when the shit hits the fan?
1 rrtangent 2018-03-26
Why is that?
1 garyp714 2018-03-26
Oh no! the right wingers that took over the sub are losing their grip as the lefties come back.
1 lucky2014 2018-03-26
u mad
1 RecoveringGrace 2018-03-26
Rule 10
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Would I criticize one of the New Yorkers you're referring to above for overstating their experience of 9/11? Yes, if they were using that overstated experience to further a political agenda.
1 Ibespwn 2018-03-26
I will and regularly do. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and then Trump and blue team for every other option in the general, weren't any third parties that I saw to choose from outside the presidential ticket. Trump sucked nuts and lied to us, not entirely surprisingly. It's not impossible he will still do something good, but I am not going to hold my breath.
I want candidates with integrity. That is part of the justification for me saying Trump sucked. He made it obvious he wasn't going to drain the swamp before he even swore in. Bernie Sanders is at least mostly consistent, harps on billionaires (who, imo, got us into this mess), and seems to have more integrity than any of the other options. Ron Paul is the only other presidential candidate I've ever seen with a measure of integrity.
If we had politicians who were held accountable for their actions and had integrity, the political process would be working. Alas, we do not, and the media on either side makes claims like "red team bad, blue team good!" and conversely "blue team bad, red team good!" dividing the population on imaginary lines when virtually everyone wants the same things, and virtually none of our politicians are even trying to get us those things.
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Do you honestly believe that these kids, with the support of some democrats, holding a rally devoted to a single issue, is the same as the Hitler Youth program?
Or do you just enjoy comparing things to Hitler, knowing that since you're doing it to left wingers nobody is going to mock you for it (like when right wingera mock liberals who compare Trump to Hitler?)
1 denreyc 2018-03-26
Wow RIP to the six people who believe that I guess.
1 Infinitezen 2018-03-26
Please go away forever, you do nothing but piss in the public pool and then get made when people call you out.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-03-26
Go ahead and tell me how the fuck I “lost the slipper slope argument.” Wtf are you talking about? I’ve granted you the opportunity numerous times to state your argument if that’s what you wish to do. But I’ve never admitted to whatever imaginary loss you’re dreaming up. You just wanna distract from the point of OP’s entire fucking post.
1 MistryMachine3 2018-03-26
I didn't say we should blindly listen to children. I just disagree with your opinion that everybody that disagrees with you is brainwashed. That isn't how you encourage healthy debate.
1 aktual_russianhacker 2018-03-26
If you really can’t see how obvious it is I can’t help you. Conspiracy never used to have mainstream media, pro government pro authoritarian top comments like it does now. This is r/conspiracy not r/politics or r/The_Donald. Pro government shit does not belong here, neither does the stupid one party is better dribble that’s spread here.
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
I’ll let smarter people than myself make the arguments in favor. I’m trying to pick off low hanging fruits like yourself.
1 Bk1n_ 2018-03-26
I don't understand why the 2nd amendment is being "thrown away"? Reformed guns laws != taking all the guns
1 Nomar_Garciawhiner 2018-03-26
She make your argument here. Honestly says it better than anyone I’ve seen.
1 facereplacer3 2018-03-26
I tape children to tables for yucks all the time.
Fuck you.