I’m sure mocking these kids will do very well for those who oppose them. Surely mocking kids doing what they think is right, after suffering incredible trauma, is better than actually trying to engage them, should one disagree.
Or maybe it’s just much, much easier.
They’re being mocked because if successful the revolution they want will result in more innocent people being killed than now and they are too young, inexperienced, naive and easily manipulated to know it.
What a great reason for mocking traumatized kids!
You think that preventing school shootings will result in more innocent people being killed?
You really don’t like students, do you?
Or maybe he meant: If we reduce the number of guns in this country, heroic gun owners will be less able to prevent tragedy with their guns like they do now.
Fucking stupid either way.
Well, that HAS been the entire marketing strategy of the gun manufacturers for quite a while, now.
Don’t go jumping to conclusions. It’s perfectly valid to presume that he STILL ingests it, to symbolize his refusal to concede that it’s not still the good ol’ days.
That’s not a big surprise. It happens with all serial killers – Ted Bundy had a huge following and was constantly getting marriage proposals. And there are fan clubs for the Columbine killers all over the internet – female fan clubs, that is. Maybe it’s some kind of weird fetish or something?
I’m sure you don’t realize what you just said, which essentially is, “Sure, more innocent people will die if guns are taken away but that doesn’t matter because these kids are traumatized.”
Well, guess what? The friends and parents and sons and daughters of innocent people killed by criminals away from school get traumatized too.
I’ve seen this time and time again in my life in the liberal approach to problems: “We don’t care if it makes things worse, we just want what’s bugging us eliminated.”
No, I both disagree with your conclusion and think it’s hilarious that you think that mocking traumatized kids will help you improve the situation. You really think that mocking traumatized kids helps your side’s argument?
Just as you misinterpreted my post, you continually misinterpret the motives of liberals. Face it, you can’t read our minds. I understand you disagree with how we approach things, but you always get wrong the why and what our goals are. You hate liberals or our ideology; just as those who hate the Jews or black people inevitably believe incorrect things about the Jews or black people, you believe incorrect things about liberals.
I support those kids (in general – it doesn’t mean I agree with everything any of them have said) because I believe their goals will result in fewer shootings and fewer dead people. My goal is to improve the lives and opportunity for Americans. Just as laws have made it very difficult for prospective shooters to acquire RPGs and full auto machine guns, I think that laws and policy might be able to make it harder for prospective shooters to get certain kinds of weapons that make school shootings easier and more deadly (i.e. short barrelled carbines, large magazines, and semi-auto action for rifle-caliber weapons).
And how would limiting the sale of guns to 21 and over, ensuring that background checks are complete and thorough, and giving law enforcement and the courts the ability to take guns away form people who are presenting themselves as threats make things worse?
I’ve seen this time and time again in my life in the conservative reactionary approach to solutions that would improve or save the lives of others: “We don’t care.”
I wonder which erotic poses Starving Artist struck in the photos that he sent to Cruz.
Ted?
Both!
He calls him by his pet name, Mr. Zodiac.
Well, if it weren’t for the Stupid Amendment, it’d be easy: We could do it the same way that every civilized nation on the planet has done it. Stop making and selling new guns except to trained professionals, and get rid of the existing guns as we can. Yes, it’d take a while, because the infection has taken deep hold here in the US, but give it a few decades, and we’d be able to protect ourselves, too, just like everyone except us is currently able, and just like we currently cant’.
Yes, I said protect us. What you don’t understand is that the Stoneman Douglass students are doing a lot more to protect people than you and your gun ever have. Guns don’t protect. Guns are what we’re trying to protect against.
Guns don’t protect, people protect.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that the protests are financed by somebody who is expecting to gain something. Can you tell me what this is and what they’d gain? Is there somekind of industry that is waiting to replace gun factories ? I honestly can’t think any.
Except…
fidget spinners :eek:
You’ve zeroed in on a point that doesn’t get enough coverage: when the right says ‘these kids are being funded,’ the follow-up needs to be the same dose of common sense you offered: WHO is it the right imagines will make a PROFIT by keeping deranged teenagers (and other inapproprate people) from getting their hands on assault weapons?
Your spoilered suggestion makes about as much sense as anything else.
And how would that be done? Buy back? Confiscation? Making guns and gun possession illegal? What?
And what would be the legal ramifications afterward? Are we looking at jailing people for shooting an armed intruder because they possessed an illegally owned firearm? Are we really going to start putting people in jail for defending themselves? I for one can easily see such a day coming.
Exactly. And during that while bad guys will have guns while the nation’s good guys are law-abidingly giving theirs up. Thus the bad guys will be emboldened, knowing their intended victims are likely unable to defend themselves, and the good guys (including women, btw) will become victims in their own homes for want of sufficient means to defend themselves.
Remember, I asked for a feasible way to keep guns out of the hands of the country’s bad guys. I’m seeing nothing in this plan of yours that accomplishes this at all.
You mean like in London, whose murder rate just surpassed New York City’s for the first time in history? And most of whose 80 murder victims were killed with knives? With protection like that I’d say most of us are better off with guns.
This couldn’t be more wrong. Guns protect people from crime and criminals every single day. Both by providing a very effective weapon against intrusion into the home and against automobile hijackings, as evinced by the numerous accounts of such reported in the (almost invariable) local news (as opposed to the liberally biased MSM that prefers to sweep such things under the rug), and by serving as a deterrent against such attacks due to the fact that more people in their homes and cars are likely to be armed.
The problem in this country, as in London, is that we simply have too many people who are willing to break the law and too many who are willing to kill people in order to pull it off or avoid capture.
Look, people are going to get killed regardless. And there is no question that without guns people are sitting ducks in their own homes. And there is also no question that without legal gun ownership more people will be killed by criminals wielding guns or other weapons.
So the question becomes which way will result in the fewest deaths. I’ve seen nothing in the way of evidence to even suggest let along prove that fewer murders would occur in the absence of legal gun ownership, and both life experience and common sense suggest very strongly that more murders of every kind will occur once people lose their most effective way of protecting themselves.
There are plenty of things that COULD be done. But the gun nuts fight them all.
Real background checks: A national federal database of all convicted felons and “mental cases” who should NEVER be able to get a gun … include those convicted of domestic abuse/violence. Require that all military branches and local law enforcement agencies input the required information. Require ALL sellers to use it before making any kind of sale, commercial OR private.
Consistency: Enact a set of federal laws, to replace the crazy quilt of state “laws” so they are all consistent. Some states will then be stricter, and some will be more lax.
Raise the legal buying age to 21.
Enact a federal ban on silencers and bump stocks.
And that’s just off the top of my head.