Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“My message for the people in office is: You’re either with us or against us,” said junior Cameron Kasky, in CNN. “We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around.”

Oh please. Insert eye-roll here.

[clip]

Blaming a gun — a nonthinking, nonmoving piece of metal — is ridiculous.

[clip]

Of course, it’s essential to feel safe in the classroom.

But let’s not get stupid about it.

These teens are missing the mark. They’re ignorant on history — on the reasons for the Second Amendment, on the realities of governments that strip citizens of gun ownership rights — and they’re blind to truths about the roots of violence.

Moreover, they’re behaving like little elitists who know best how to run a country — this, despite the fact they haven’t even proven they can run their own lives, outside their parents’ homes.

The media, of course, are loving it.

What an opportunity to exploit.

But calls to curb Second Amendment rights that come on the heels of senseless acts of gun-tied violence are never smart campaigns. They’re based on roller-coaster emotions that demand politicians act, by gosh, and put a stop to the violence — despite the fact they don’t hold that power.


Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns


Useful Idiots for Progressive Propaganda
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control
On a FB discussion, on a guys page where everybody is pretty civil, a guy asked where in the 2nd Amendment it gave us the right to revolt. I told him the 2nd was the wrench to use on lost freedom, the warranty is right in the declaration. He them upbraided me politely that any gun grabbers would seize on my points as saying the only reason we would like to keep guns is that we want to overthrow the govt. He said I should "temper" my arguments. When I pointed out that A) He asked a specific question about the Second, and that B) REserving the right to do a thing doesn't mean you are itching to do it. I dont want the Us to go to war, but I also want our troops to be able to win whatever war there is. Oddly enough he stopped commenting after that :)
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
On a FB discussion, on a guys page where everybody is pretty civil, a guy asked where in the 2nd Amendment it gave us the right to revolt. I told him the 2nd was the wrench to use on lost freedom, the warranty is right in the declaration. He them upbraided me politely that any gun grabbers would seize on my points as saying the only reason we would like to keep guns is that we want to overthrow the govt. He said I should "temper" my arguments. When I pointed out that A) He asked a specific question about the Second, and that B) REserving the right to do a thing doesn't mean you are itching to do it. I dont want the Us to go to war, but I also want our troops to be able to win whatever war there is. Oddly enough he stopped commenting after that :)

And yet there is no groundswell of support for a complete eradication of 2a, is there?

There is no "slippery slope" is there?

"troops being able to win whatever war there is." What kind of ridiculous comment is that? You think you and some "militia" are going to stop an invasion (you think you are Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn)? You think 2a applies to the armed forces/military? I can understand why the other guy stopped commenting...he realized you had nothing to back up your position so you were just making sh1t up.
 

black dog

Free America
And yet there is no groundswell of support for a complete eradication of 2a, is there?

There is no "slippery slope" is there?

"troops being able to win whatever war there is." What kind of ridiculous comment is that? You think you and some "militia" are going to stop an invasion (you think you are Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn)? You think 2a applies to the armed forces/military? I can understand why the other guy stopped commenting...he realized you had nothing to back up your position so you were just making sh1t up.

I suggest you go and learn what the CMP ( Civilian Marksmanship Program ) now the DCM ( Division of Civilian Marksmanship ) and the NRA actually are here for and what their true purpose is with the citizens of the US.
You truly don't have a ####ing clue what you are talking about.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Has anyone pointed out to these kids that they are far more likely to die of drug overdose or vehicular accident than being shot? Why don't they care about the things that will really kill them?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The kids are only acting out on what they are being taught in the liberals public education Department.
They parrot their teachers.

Also they lose a lot of school friends and it is healthy for them to strike out. It helps in their bereavement for them to think they are doing something.
Even if it's wrong.

Banning guns will not cure one sick MF'er who is insane enough to want to kill.
24 people were stabbed in a school near Pittsburg yesterday.
Insanity
And what do we do with the insane.? We give them a pill.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
And yet there is no groundswell of support for a complete eradication of 2a, is there?

you are a disingenuous #### munch through and through ......
No Genius there is no specific 'Move to Repeal' YET,, you guys don't have enough balls for that

however for 30 yrs or there has been a concerted effort to push for more and more and more 'gun control'

a back door eradication of gun ownership ...



Repeal The 2nd Amendment


Headlines Across U.S. Call for Repeal of Second Amendment



Here’s a handful of the headlines:

• An op-ed published in the New York Times on February 16 is an example of the full-throated fascism: “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment.”

• The headline of an article by Case R. Sunstein published by Bloomberg on February 15 claims: “Nothing in the Constitution Prevents Sensible Gun Rules.”

• A letter published by the Chicago Tribune on February 17 insists that “America Has Outgrown the Second Amendment.”

• Max Boot, a columnist for the Washington Post foments the fear mongering, writing: “The Second Amendment is being turned into a suicide pact.”

Basically, all of these “respectable” news outlets are using the tragedy of the senseless murder of children as cover for their never-ending quest to disarm civilians, who would then become sitting ducks to would-be mass murderers. Tragically, such was already the case with the students and teachers at Parkland, Florida’s Stoneman Douglas High School, which was, after all, a gun-free zone. And such is the case in many other locales across the country where guns are prohibited.

Mind you, liberals who insist on depriving fellow citizens of the fundamental right to defend themselves are the same people who insist it is a fundamental right of every woman to have her baby murdered in utero. As an aside (this isn’t the point of this article), 56.1 million babies have been killed by abortion since 1973. By comparison, since the year 2000, there have been 130 children killed in school shootings. That's still tragic, as is every murder, but the number of victims would undoubtedly be fewer if, as indicated above, the schools were not soft targets that the perpetrators knew could be attacked without fear of armed resistance.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
And yet there is no groundswell of support for a complete eradication of 2a, is there?

There is no "slippery slope" is there?

"troops being able to win whatever war there is." What kind of ridiculous comment is that? You think you and some "militia" are going to stop an invasion (you think you are Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn)? You think 2a applies to the armed forces/military? I can understand why the other guy stopped commenting...he realized you had nothing to back up your position so you were just making sh1t up.


No there is not, which doesnt stop the chatter for such. And there certainly is a slippery slope. Once you start banning features, then expand that set, pretty soon you can end up in a place where every firearm is banned.

Now, as to your second point, your comprehension skills seem to be lacking.

"I dont want the Us to go to war, but I also want our troops to be able to win whatever war there is." has nothing to do with civilians stopping an invasion. He accused me of wanting to overthrow the govt becuase I pointed out that citizens defending themselves from a govt turned tryannical was the stated reason for the 2nd amendment. My point was that there is a difference between having a capability to do something and wanting to do it. Wanting our military to have the capability to win any war they get into is NOT the same as wanting them to get into wars. Having the capability to defend yourself if the govt went bad is NOT the same as wanting to overthrow the govt. Let me know if any of that confuses you.

I also want to point out that liberals seem far more enamored of the Red Dawn Scenario than conservatives. :) You all cant shut up about it. Part of the whole mocking and ridiculing that seems to be the liberal go-to when facts and logic runs out.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
No there is not, which doesnt stop the chatter for such. And there certainly is a slippery slope. Once you start banning features, then expand that set, pretty soon you can end up in a place where every firearm is banned.

Now, as to your second point, your comprehension skills seem to be lacking.

"I dont want the Us to go to war, but I also want our troops to be able to win whatever war there is." has nothing to do with civilians stopping an invasion. He accused me of wanting to overthrow the govt becuase I pointed out that citizens defending themselves from a govt turned tryannical was the stated reason for the 2nd amendment. My point was that there is a difference between having a capability to do something and wanting to do it. Wanting our military to have the capability to win any war they get into is NOT the same as wanting them to get into wars. Having the capability to defend yourself if the govt went bad is NOT the same as wanting to overthrow the govt. Let me know if any of that confuses you.

I also want to point out that liberals seem far more enamored of the Red Dawn Scenario than conservatives. :) You all cant shut up about it. Part of the whole mocking and ridiculing that seems to be the liberal go-to when facts and logic runs out.

I doubt there are many U.S.citizens who join the military who have to be taught how to fire a weapon.
Oh Yeah!! They taught me the military way, but I had been firing weapons since I was 10.
My Dad was a good teacher.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
And there certainly is a slippery slope. Once you start banning features, then expand that set, pretty soon you can end up in a place where every firearm is banned.

the 'bump stock ban was so broad it could be construed to ban a whole bunch or weapons



I also want to point out that liberals seem far more enamored of the Red Dawn Scenario than conservatives. :) You all cant shut up about it. Part of the whole mocking and ridiculing that seems to be the liberal go-to when facts and logic runs out.

Looks Like Red DAWN ....

calexit.jpg

California Will Secede From the United States in the New Comic Calexit


A Look Inside Calexit, the Comic That Imagines California's Secession From a Fascist US
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control
I doubt there are many U.S.citizens who join the military who have to be taught how to fire a weapon.
Oh Yeah!! They taught me the military way, but I had been firing weapons since I was 10.
My Dad was a good teacher.



Depnds on the service, maybe. I was not raised with guns in the house nor was I taught to fire them at home, even though my father had grown up with firearms, being a farm kid in Tennessee and Alabama, who also taught aeriel machine gunnery between Korea and Vietnam. The Navy did teach me the Ruger Service Six, the .45, and the Mossberg 500 shotgun. I almost imagine you could correlate previous firearms experience to branch of service in order of Marine Corp, Army, Navy, then Air Force.
 
Last edited:

BOP

Well-Known Member
And yet there is no groundswell of support for a complete eradication of 2a, is there?

There is no "slippery slope" is there?

"troops being able to win whatever war there is." What kind of ridiculous comment is that? You think you and some "militia" are going to stop an invasion (you think you are Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn)? You think 2a applies to the armed forces/military? I can understand why the other guy stopped commenting...he realized you had nothing to back up your position so you were just making sh1t up.

Besides kill or be killed, the primary "rule" in nature is never attack anything that might injure, cripple or maim you. Humans call it "detente."
 
Top