Hong Wu wrote:One of the lead "activists" screeching about how the attacker deserved to be ostracized. I read that another one vomited on live television while giving her speech. Pretty cringe worthy stuff and I think it says something about the left's mental state that they think encouraging this kind of behavior by children promotes their positions.
Ultimately, it's pointless. It's George Soros' way of feeling like he can make a difference. It will have as much of a lasting impact as the Million Man March. Generally, only spontaneous movements like the Tea Party or single-issue voter stuff like pro- or anti-abortion stances stay important for extended times.
Godstud wrote:That's going to change, I think. Young people, more than ever, need to vote against these old baby Boomers who are obsolete.
They generally don't vote until they start working and the government starts taking money out of their paychecks. If they aren't working for a government or some sort of inelastic business such as higher education or healthcare, they generally start becoming more conservative at that point too.
One Degree wrote:It is asking hormonal emotionalism to be dominant over reason.
That seems to the the establishment's MO generally these days.
Godstud wrote:Well, @One Degree, it's quite obvious that the older generations, despite their so-called wisdom, are incapable of acting on gun control, so it is indeed up to the enthusiastic youths to act, and indeed vote for change that the older generations are afraid of, or apathetic about.
It has already been acted upon. The problem is that it doesn't work. Mental health issues are the bigger problem, and the establishment does not want to address it. So their media apparatus misdirects and misinforms people. Nothing will get done, but perhaps some window dressing.
Godstud wrote:Gun control DOES work, but the NRA, and other gun activists, don't like to acknowledge that.
That's because gun control doesn't work. Just look at gun violence where the strictest gun control laws work--e.g., Chicago.
Godstud wrote:Watch a tv show from the 50s and compare it to a tv now. The levels of violence that are acceptable are astronomical. Pretending that the US hasn't made a cultural shift towards violence is to be willfully ignorant.
Pretending that isn't coming from a media dominated by people on the political left is to be willfully ignorant too. Why are leftists so inclined to such violent entertainment?
Godstud wrote:Local level? That doesn't do squat(see Chicago). They want guns they just have to leave Chicago to buy one.
Right. We had a national-level assault weapons ban. It didn't do squat either. The Florida school had a sheriff onscene at the school before the shooting took place. What did he do? A whole lot of nothing. Government isn't the answer. It employs the flunky children of the politically connected--a different brand of snow flakes who feel entitled to lecture everyone, collect a fat paycheck and pension, and underperform virtually everyone else in society.
Godstud wrote:Many European countries have far greater population density without the propblems the USA has.
The violence level among the European populations in the United States is the same as it is in Europe. Most of our violence comes from non-European and non-Asian populations.
One Degree wrote:Admittedly, Chicago is so corrupt they should not be used as an argument for either of us.
Places like Chicago are run by left wing political mobs. That's the sort of government Godstud likes to see. Yet, he readily admits that his type of government doesn't work. Where does most gun violence take place? In places governed by conservatives, or places governed by liberals?
Godstud wrote:The Chicago problem is one where the local laws have outlawed guns, but the guns are easily obtained nearby, outside of the zones where the laws are strict. You cannot enact local laws without national laws backing them up.
Why not? On completely orthogonal issues, the Democrats are enacting sanctuary city laws and arguing just that point. All you are pointing out is that criminals do not obey the law, which is something we could have told you if you had asked. Gun control laws only work on above-board commerce. People who are willing to murder are generally willing to violate gun control laws too. There aren't a lot of people who say, "I was going to murder so and so, but I couldn't get a gun so I didn't do it." That's why there isn't a national debate on the Austin bomber, because "bomb control" laws didn't work either, and they are backed up by state and federal law.
Stormsmith wrote:For a first time event, these young people were near pitch perfect. The production was v well done.
And it was meaningless, because these people don't vote or contribute to campaigns. It was indeed a "production," meaning it wasn't spontaneous. It was organized and funded by leftists, as usual. Of course, I heard about it but didn't see anything. I didn't even see the Stormy Daniels story on Trump, because I don't watch CBS outside of football season.
Stormsmith wrote:America has slid backwards since 2000. If the government won't protect the kids then the kids are fully within their right to express their constitutionally ensured right to free speach, and to vote accordingly when they're able.
And if they are 18, they are within their constitutionally ensured right to buy a gun.
Godstud wrote:Godstud is gleefully exploting this.
Godstud lives under a non-democratic government by choice, and would probably like the same for the rest of us too.
Godstud wrote:I've said only that semi-automatic rifles, with large magazine sizes(in particular) don't belong in the hands of civilians.
That's their constitutional right.
Godstud wrote:I've never said that handguns shouldn't be allowed for self-defense in the home, nor have I said squat about hunting rifles or shotguns(neither of which are particularly good for home defense).
Handguns are the source of most gun violence, which is why semi-automatic rifle arguments are spurious. Someone can just buy a Colt 1911 and a bunch of clips and have a much better chance of concealing the weapon. .45 cal rounds have much more stopping power.
Godstud wrote:The standing militia part of the 2nd Amendment needs amending. It's out-dated, and serves no real purpose other than to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians, who oft times abuse this right, to the detriment of others.
You need a 2/3rds majority of both houses and a simple majority in 3/4s of the legislatures to get that done. That's why a divisive political issue rarely makes for a constitutional amendment. The Baby Boomers campaigned to lower the age of majority during the Vietnam war, which means that is is perfectly legal for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15 now. Telling 18 year olds they should go and die with an M4 in Afghanistan or Iraq for you, but then argue that they aren't to be trusted with the same weapon when they return home is a bit rich.
Godstud wrote:Like it or not, an AK-47 isn't going to protect you from said government. That's the reality, despite the 2nd Amendment. Pretending it will, is what most people who defend the 2nd Amendment believe. You can believe what you want, but the facts fly in the face of this.
Politicians are afraid of people with guns. That's how we like it in America.
Victorious Spolia wrote:Tell that to the Vietcong..... 
Or the Taliban. Mozambique has an AK-47 on their flag.
Heisenberg wrote:I must admit it's very strange that people insist that private firearms ownership is basically useless against a modern army. The US Army's two most recent conflicts were Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were bogged down for years by guerrilla warfare.
Drlee makes that argument all the time. He seems to think the US army would make war against the American people quite easily. The problem with an all volunteer military is that it is comprised of the people in flyover country that the establishment hates. The establishment types don't even like firecrackers. They get upset if there is too much foam in their doppio macchiato.
Heisenberg wrote:And of course, in the event of a hypothetical asymmetric civil war in the USA, I would venture that the army would have far more qualms about "shock and awe" tactics than they did in either of those wars, which would tip the balance further.
That's why the establishment in the cities hates the rest of America. They can lie and propagate, but if it came to force of arms they would be quickly outclassed. People like Drlee seem to think that IEDs could only work in Iraq, but would suddenly stop working in the US.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
- By late
- By Rugoz