National School Walkout

[Juvenal]

In the part you snipped off from my post MTV made it clear that it wasn't "their" bus but rather that they partnered with the NAACP and several celebutards to provide them. And looking at the ages, it's pretty obvious some of the ones you call students are anything but. And since it was 17 buses I'll bet the list you provided was anything but complete.

Seventeen names.

Alyssa Alhadeff, 14
Scott Beigel, 35
Martin Duque, 14
Nicholas Dworet, 17
Aaron Feis, 37
Jaime Guttenberg, 14
Chris Hixon, 49
Luke Hoyer, 15
Cara Loughran, 14
Gina Montalto, 14
Joaquin Oliver, 17
Alaina Petty, 14
Meadow Pollack, 18
Helena Ramsay, 17
Alex Schachter, 14
Carmen Schentrup, 16
Peter Wang, 15

... would never.

These were their buses.

[Juvenal]

Posters are reminded to refrain from personal attacks in these threads.

[Roy]

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

Given your own impressive level of ignorance you have no business saying some-one else has "little sense of history".

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

Yes, when people are stabbed it is referred to as "knife violence".

[seer]

I fight for many things. But I usually fight for people and their needs. I don't threaten my fellow citizens over a thing. I also fight within the laws of the land, and within the spirit of the Constitution. I fight with my vote, and with my donations. I don't threaten my fellow citizens with physical harm because they disagree with me. We have a mechanism built into the Constitution for settling our differences. If a new constitutional amendment is passed repealing the 2nd Amendment, THAT will be the new law of the land - and the question of constitutionality will change. If you then persist in your threats - you will make yourself a criminal. The rest of us will be doing exactly what the Constitution says we CAN do - change it.

So if the courts decided that the First Amendment did not actually allow you to criticize the government or elected officials, and the press had to be controlled by the government you would do nothing? You would take it like a good sheep? If the majority of your fellow citizens wanted to repeal the First Amendment, you would just lay down? Thankfully our Founding Fathers did not feel the way you do.

[Mountain Man]

The event seems to have attracted a few people...





...I guess George Soros must be getting pretty poor now paying all these people (and all the people at the Women's March).

Only about 200,000 people showed up despite the left's best efforts to fly and bus people in. This of course has not stopped organizers from claiming a number 4x higher then that, which I'm not sure can be characterized as anything but a bald-face lie.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...xpected-crowd/

[Mountain Man]

For even more fun, watch as these kids are stumped by the question "What is an assault weapon?"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ssault-weapon/

Which is just as well seeing how the term "assault weapon" was invented by DemoKKKrats.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/1...ssault-weapon/

[Roy]

Gotta love the backward morality where war crimes are fine but bad language is terrible.

Yeah, apparently genocide is morally just but swearing should be disallowed.

[carpedm9587]

So you going to become a British citizen now?

I don't understand the reference...?

[Roy]

Roe, can't even get off the ground Constitutionally or historically where gun rights go back to English Common law.

English common law existed long before guns were even invented. It is not the basis for US gun rights.

[carpedm9587]

So if the courts decided that the First Amendment did not actually allow you to criticize the government or elected officials, and the press had to be controlled by the government you would do nothing? You would take it like a good sheep?

Of course not. I would fight at the ballot box. I would elect representatives that would appoint different judges. I would engage in acts of civil disobediance. I would work to get a new Amendment written.

If the majority of your fellow citizens wanted to repeal the First Amendment, you would just lay down?

If the majority of my fellow citizens were against me and WANTED to squelch free speech, then I would leave for a country that DOES value free speech. What I wouldn't do is threaten my fellow citizens with bodily harm.

Thankfully our Founding Fathers did not feel the way you do.

I find this a bit ironic after your accusation that the kids do not have a sense of history. As I recall, the Founding Fathers fought against a tyrannical, oppresive monarchy in which they did not have a voice. They established a government specifically so that the people would have a voice in their government (which is why your hypothetical is a bit off). And they established a system by which that voice could be expressed.

But if you feel your absolute/universal moral code permits you to take up arms and threaten bodily harm because your fellow citizens might think we need a few less guns around here, then so be it. Your continued posts (coupled with the rest of the tone of the gun posts that have been made here, the NRA ads, etc.) are informative. I have been too moderate in my position. The pro gun crowd has an enormous contingent of very dangerous people. It's time to start limiting access more effectively. This will be a major compponent of my voting and my advocacy going forward.

[seer]

Given your own impressive level of ignorance you have no business saying some-one else has "little sense of history".

Are you deluded Roy? You think you were actually right in that discussion? And yes our kids have little sense of history:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43397386/n.../#.WrjZR6jwa9I

https://collegestats.org/2012/07/25-...nts-dont-know/

Yes, when people are stabbed it is referred to as "knife violence".

Wow, you found one quote from a paper in England? Sad Roy, even for you...

[Roy]

Wow, you found one quote from a paper in England? Sad Roy, even for you...

No, I found dozens of examples. You could have too.

[seer]

English common law existed long before guns were even invented. It is not the basis for US gun rights.

It has to do with with the basic right of self defence:

https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...lf-defens.html

And:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjectscited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[seer]

No, I found dozens of examples. You could have too.

Really show me some papers in the US talking about knife violence. The fact is the whole argument is nonsensical, guns don't do violence, guns don't do anything. People do violence with guns.

[seer]

If the majority of my fellow citizens were against me and WANTED to squelch free speech, then I would leave for a country that DOES value free speech. What I wouldn't do is threaten my fellow citizens with bodily harm.

Well there is the difference, this is my Country, and I think it, and our rights, are worth fighting for. Not that at my age, I could do much fighting at all.

I find this a bit ironic after your accusation that the kids do not have a sense of history. As I recall, the Founding Fathers fought against a tyrannical, oppresive monarchy in which they did not have a voice. They established a government specifically so that the people would have a voice in their government (which is why your hypothetical is a bit off). And they established a system by which that voice could be expressed.

And a majority who are willing to take away God given rights are not tyrannical? Whether a King or a majority - it is still tyrannical.

But if you feel your absolute/universal moral code permits you to take up arms and threaten bodily harm because your fellow citizens might think we need a few less guns around here, then so be it. Your continued posts (coupled with the rest of the tone of the gun posts that have been made here, the NRA ads, etc.) are informative. I have been too moderate in my position. The pro gun crowd has an enormous contingent of very dangerous people. It's time to start limiting access more effectively. This will be a major compponent of my voting and my advocacy going forward.

See your side are the aggressors. You are coming for our guns and our rights, even though we are law abiding and not harming anyone. Make no mistake - you are the initiators, not us.