Was a bunch of children marching for gun control a success or an embarrassment? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Videos about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14901720
Godstud wrote:You are trying to blame the schools for what happened, and divert attention away from the gun control issue. It's dishonest and sleazy. Schools already do not accept violence, and bullying is fought, tooth and nail, within the school system.

You agree with something that has NOTHING to do with the issue. No guns. no school shootings. That's the bottom line that you, and other bigots here, will not discuss, nor even consider.

The anti bullying campaign, imo, has the best chance of changing human behavior more than anything else I know. Unfortunately, I am expecting it to be undermined by ‘well intentioned liberals’ and paranoid school administrators who insist upon hiding bad behavior from the public.
You want to blame guns. I want to change human behavior that results in people choosing to use guns criminally. You want to address a symptom. I want to address the cause. This is not dishonest and sleazy, it is an honest interest in bringing about real change. Pretending I am being dishonest is simply a crude way of ignoring any solutions except your own. Like it or not, we are BOTH offering possible solutions.
#14901721
The shootings have nothing to do with school policy on bullying(which is already heavily enforced).

The shootings could not have occurred had the guns not been accessible. Yes, that's a gun control problem, not a child problem.

The root cause of school shootings is guns. You cannot have a school shooting without a gun. Fact.

Why do you think that stopping kids from getting guns means that you can't have your dick extension? They want to stop kids from getting guns. Why is this such a problem for people like you? It call comes back to protecting a right to kill other Americans if you choose? How fucking stupid is that?
#14901726
Godstud wrote:The shootings have nothing to do with school policy on bullying(which is already heavily enforced).

The shootings could not have occurred had the guns not been accessible. Yes, that's a gun control problem, not a child problem.

The root cause of school shootings is guns. You cannot have a school shooting without a gun. Fact.

Why do you think that stopping kids from getting guns means that you can't have your dick extension? They want to stop kids from getting guns. Why is this such a problem for people like you? It call comes back to protecting a right to kill other Americans if you choose? How fucking stupid is that?

You can’t have an overdose without drugs, should all drugs be banned?

Edit: @Godstud I feel like I am picking on you since you and I seem to be the only ones posting much right now. I think I will not respond for awhile so I don’t feel like a bully. Thanks for the exchanges.
#14901728
Protecting children:

Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually.

Compare the rate with the more than 100 school-age children accidentally killed each year riding their bikes to school. Congress might be too timid to pass gun legislation to protect children, but how about a national bicycle helmet law for minors? Half of the states do not require them. There is no NRA — National Riding Association — opposing that.
#14901731
If anything is 'embarrassing' it's Laura Ingraham's so called 'apology' to David Hogg for mocking him for his college applications (which isn't unusual for most students in the U.S., it can take several before an acceptance).

Which she only made after advertisers are starting to pull out of funding her show!

Like the other right-wing gobs-for hire & paid actors on FNC, she's got a looooong history of bullying and denouncing people. It's not just Trump that gets 'triggered' by the slightest hint of criticism or embarrassing revelations/news.

He also rejected her invitation to appear on her show and discuss his gun control campaign.
"I think it's really disgusting, the fact that she basically tried promoting her show after apologising to me," he told CNN.

On Friday, the exodus of sponsors continued, despite Ms Ingraham's tweeted apology.
TripAdvisor, JoS A Bank, Expedia, Hulu, Johnson & Johnson, Office Depot, Jenny Craig, Atlantis, Wayfair, Stich Fix, Nestlé and Nutrish have all announced they will withdraw commercials from The Ingraham Angle.
#14901735
One Degree wrote:You can’t have an overdose without drugs, should all drugs be banned?
Drugs that are dangerous, and can cause overdoses ARE illegal. You picked a bad example. :D

One Degree wrote:Edit: @Godstud I feel like I am picking on you since you and I seem to be the only ones posting much right now. I think I will not respond for awhile so I don’t feel like a bully. Thanks for the exchanges.
By all means, FLEE. Your arguments are weak, and unsatisfying.
#14901740
In my opinion, it is an embarrassment. The left once again uses children to push their agenda. Those children are constantly being misinformed and now more miserable. Those children are being filled with culture of political violence, lynching opposite views. A generation of new leftist demagogues are coming underway.

Gun control policies are out of the reality. They suggest many thing which have no actual effect. Like one of them which suggest to raising the age to 21. Yes, you block high school children from getting arms. But you left university and collage students. This is hilarious.

How will you block people getting arms from underground structures and organizations? You can't ban it. It will never work.

With gun control laws, you will only encourage people to get arms illegally. Because they cannot get it in legal ways.

Do gun control laws prevent shootings, specifically school shootings? No, they don't and will not. Shooting incidents have been always with us humanity and it will be always with us.

Do guns kill? No, guns don't kill. People kill. A gun does not fire as long as a human does not use it.

Why do we need guns? We need guns for various reasons.

People need guns because they want to feel themselves secure. It is a basic human right.

People should have the right to get arms because the state and armed forces shouldn't have a monopoly on this.

People should have guns to secure democracy and free elections. Under circumstances like being goverrned by a tranny or under cases like political coup and military coup, people should be able to stand against these.

Foreign invasion threat. If you live in comparatively weak country in terms of military power, you need additional fire power to defend your nation
#14901747
Everything you just mentioned, @Istanbuller is not borne in reality. Obviously, you've not read anything in this thread, as everything you've mentioned has been disputed and found to be false.

Gun control does work. There is mountains of evidence supporting this.
Gun control does make it harder to get your hands on guns. Illegal guns are hard to come by, and expensive to purchase. This alone often makes people not bother buying illegal guns.
Gun control reduces homicides and shootings.
People do kill, but guns makes it far easier to kill a great many people, easily.
Guns in the home make it more likely that there will be a homicide, or suicide, in the home.
Guns do not make you safer.
Making it hard for people to get guns WILL make school shootings less common. This is borne in reality in countries where they've changed gun laws after mass/school shootings.
It doesn't matter if you have an AR-15, since the police and military will always have your horribly outgunned. See Tanks.
Guns do not guarantee democracy. Having a gun doesn't give you a right to vote.
Guns are not a basic human right. That's nonsense. Extremely few people on earth would agree with this faulty premise.
Guns in the home are no defense against foreign invasion, especially not in this era. Foreign policy, allies, diplomacy, etc. determine how safe any country is. Canada doesn't have oodles of guns for home defense, and I can assure you, Canadians do not fear foreign invasion.
#14901753
There is no single statistical work to prove pro- gun control claims. The left and leftist political organizations have a long history of data manipulation. Like the way they claimed people in those rallies were overhemningly students. But it is proven that only ten percent of them were students.

There is no criteria for gun control. More importantly, there is no sciencefic base to set rules.

You want to punish all people just because there are a few shooting incidents occur sometimes. You punish other people instead of offender. Being able to have a gun is a human right.

It doesn't matter if you have an AR-15, since the police and military will always have your horribly outgunned. See Tanks.
Guns do not guarantee democracy. Having a gun doesn't give you a right to vote.
Guns are not a basic human right. That's nonsense. Extremely few people on earth would agree with this faulty premise.
Guns in the home are no defense against foreign invasion, especially not in this era. Foreign policy, allies, diplomacy, etc. determine how safe any country is.

You don't know anything related to things i wrote.

Myself and my country is a living proof that guns gurantee democracy and free elections. I am writing this as a person who survived many coup and coup attempts, foreign invasion threats.

Canada doesn't have oodles of guns for home defense, and I can assure you, Canadians do not fear foreign invasion.

You don't have to fear. Because you are already run by another country. You don't have free voices in Canada.
#14901813
Godstud wrote:The discussion is not about illegal immigration.

Law is about legality and illegality and thus has broad scope. People with your political persuasion rely on the Roman maxim that the law has been obeyed. However, the opposite of the Roman maxim is also true. The law has been disobeyed without consequence.

Godstud wrote:More deflection

It's not deflection. Purchasing an assault rifle is illegal in California. That did not stop the San Bernardino shooters. You wax on as though you were sophisticated--musing that a city-wide ban isn't sufficient. Well, California is a nation-state that is part of the US federation. As a state, it is larger than many nations such as the UK, Germany, Japan, Poland or South Korea. Yet, banning assault rifles did nothing to prevent a couple of emigres from procuring AR-15s and going on the largest mass shooting spree since Sandy Hook. Obama called for a ban on sales to people on "no-fly" lists in spite of the fact that he knew as a constitutional law professor that such a ban is unconstitutional, because it violates due process.

Government watch lists are not enough. The government has to enforce the law, and then apply restrictions. Yet, the people who are most against law enforcement are the ones calling for gun bans. If they get enforced, the people most likely to face incarceration are black--something that would lead to more public outcry.

Godstud wrote:Note: No one is supporting illegal immigration, and you'd have to me a brain-dead moron to think that, and try to use it as an argument about gun control.

About 1/3rd of the US population evidently does. They do not care about enforcing border laws, because they believe in an end to the nation state. In fact, our governor just pardoned the violations of state law of 6 people facing deportation. A mayor not too far from where I lived tipped off a bunch of illegal immigrants about a pending ICE raid. If that isn't illegal, then it won't be illegal for gun loving states to thwart federal gun control enforcement too.

Godstud wrote:Laws, when enforced {sic} work.

Bwahahahaa! Sure they do. The shooter was an uncharged felon. Why was he uncharged? Obama didn't like seeing a school-to-prison path for young violent criminals. The left believes it can "educate the hate away." It didn't matter that the FBI puts out "see something, say something." The shooter said he was going to be a mass shooter online. The FBI did nothing. It's easy to trace an IP address--just ask the admins on this board, as they log all of our IP addresses. Yet, the FBI did absolutely jack shit. The Sheriff's office had been called to the shooters residence 30+ times, and they did jack shit. The school had a Sheriff's deputy on scene--evidently not to protect the students, but a place to put a non-performing officer without firing him, because he was black--and he took no action to stop the shooter. More deputies arrived, and they stood put as people were getting shot. I'm sure you are just welling with pride about the inaction of law enforcement. :roll:

The history of the failure of law enforcement is significant. The government wanted to fight the crystal meth trade, so they banned sale of mass quantities of the key ingredients without a license and stated purpose. Then, they banned the mass sale of OTC drugs like nasal decongestants that could be used to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. What happened? Did the law solve that problem? No. It just pushed it South of the border. Now crystal meth is manufactured in Mexico and brought over the US-Mexico border, where your beloved law enforcement turns a blind eye because they want to end the nation state, exploit Hispanic labor, and are perfectly fine with turning a blind eye on the drug trade to furnish that end.

What makes you think we gun lovers won't just take a page out of the Democrats book and simply refuse to cooperate with Federal gun control enforcement, just like the Democrats who won't cooperate with illegal aliens or federal bans on marijuana trade?

Godstud wrote:Yes, he is also an uncaring, melodramatic bigot, who loves guns more than people, just like you...

Who is reduced to ad hominem attacks in this sentence?

Godstud wrote:You guys, @One Degree, @Hong Wu and @blackjack21 , think this whole discussion is about your precious guns getting taken away as some perceived punishment.

I have two registered "assault weapons" that are perfectly legal in most states in the United States, but I would be guilty of a crime if I sold them to someone in California. That law is based on the commerce clause, not the second amendment. I own the guns and owned them before this absurd bit of regulation in California that does nothing except put more black people in jail. You know... the ones Hillary Clinton dubs "super predators."

Godstud wrote:You are trying to blame the schools for what happened, and divert attention away from the gun control issue.

Gun control doesn't work. The shooter said plainly online that he intended to become a mass shooter. What did the FBI do? Nothing. "We can't identify who he is, even though he used his real name and the site logs his IP address and we could get that, trace it back to the ISP, pull their logs and identify him within about 30 minutes. There's nothing we can do!" Fuck me running.

Do you people really think we're going to fall for this bullshit? The same government does nothing about mental health issues, which are a problem in almost every single mass shooting incident. We've got all sorts of "don't haze the transgenders" shit out there. Yet, there was plenty of hazing of the Parkland shooter, the Columbine shooters (who were subject to the assault weapons ban in the 1990s, which did nothing), the Sandy Hook shooter, etc.

You guys don't want to deal with mental health issues, because you know that people who believe in communism are mentally ill.

Horror on streets of Germany: State of emergency declared as 80 men brawl with MACHETES

See? The problem here isn't flooding Germany with refugees who don't have marketable skills, don't speak the language, don't share ideals like equality for women or the democratic vote. The problem is a lack of machete control laws. :roll:

Godstud wrote:The shootings have nothing to do with school policy on bullying(which is already heavily enforced).

Who was punished for hazing the shooter? He was kicked out of school, but who else? No. We cannot have middle class white kids punished for bad behavior. That is not the purpose of the rules. ;)

Godstud wrote:Why do you think that stopping kids from getting guns means that you can't have your dick extension?

People with your political ideology wanted to stop the Vietnam War by getting more young people to vote, so they lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18. So the shooter was within his legal rights to purchase a guns, because even though he had the rights of an adult the law deliberately elected not to enforce it against him for making terroristic threats, because they were impossibly lazy and he was such a precious little baby that using the law against him would be really super duper mean.

Godstud wrote:It call{sic} comes back to protecting a right to kill other Americans if you choose? How fucking stupid is that?

It's not as stupid as not editing your grammar before calling someone stupid. People can kill you without a gun. Just ask the guy who killed a bunch of people in NYC with a rented truck. He didn't even buy the truck. He rented it.

ingliz wrote:Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually.

Not counting school-age blacks and Hispanics who kill each other outside of school routinely...

Godstud wrote:Drugs that are dangerous, and can cause overdoses ARE illegal. You picked a bad example. :D

Yeah One Degree! That's a bad example, because crystal meth and heroin are illegal. Laws, when enforced, work. So there is no problem with heroin deaths or crystal meth epidemics. Once the government makes something illegal, everyone just automatically obeys the law and enforces it too. It works just like magic. :knife:

Godstud wrote:There is mountains{sic} of evidence supporting this.

:roll:

Godstud wrote:It doesn't matter if you have an AR-15, since the police and military will always have your horribly outgunned.

The American people out gun the US military by orders of magnitude. The US military has 1.2M people under arms. The American people have over 100M guns. The US military would not stand a chance against the American people, and most of them would likely defect to the people and leave the government in the lurch if the government tried to make war on the people.

Godstud wrote:See Tanks.

Oooh. That's super scary to infantry soldiers. :roll: Try artillery. Tanks are effective against other vehicles--armored or otherwise. That's why they were essentially useless in Iraq after the Iraqi army fell--except as protection against IEDs. That's why they've played almost no role in Afghanistan.

Godstud wrote:Guns do not guarantee democracy.

Democracy doesn't guarantee democracy, as the deep state does whatever the fuck it wants anyway.

Godstud wrote:Guns are not a basic human right.

In America, they are.

Godstud wrote:Extremely few people on earth would agree with this faulty premise.

We don't require your agreement.

Godstud wrote:Guns in the home are no defense against foreign invasion, especially not in this era.

Yeah, then why do invading armies make it a priority to disarm the citizenry as their first measure?

Godstud wrote:Foreign policy, allies, diplomacy, etc. determine how safe any country is.

Sure. The utterances of John Kerry will make us safe. Anti-terrorism policy kept us safe on 9/11.

Godstud wrote:Canada doesn't have oodles of guns for home defense, and I can assure you, Canadians do not fear foreign invasion.

Countries that don't fear invasion don't last long. Canada has been transformed into a multi-cultural shit hole just like the UK, France and Germany without so much as a shot fired.
#14901837
@blackjack21 @Godstud
My reference was to opioids which are the current drugs being politicized. They are legal and they are deadly and they are easily obtainable. We don’t ban them because they are also beneficial. Guns are also beneficial.
#14901947
@blackjack21 Go to fucking hell you troll, if all you're going to to is pick individual sentences and words of my posts to respond to. You like to change the topic until we aren't even discussing what's the actual topic. You're the worst kind of cherry picker, and you are also continually misrepresenting my arguments, or not even understanding them. Obviously, in your trailer park they don't have advanced education past grade 2. Being senile is no reason to be uneducated.

Toss off with your English corrections, too, as I don't need some mealy-mouthed cunt editing my responses. I am not writing an English essay to get a degree, so If you're not grading my posts, then FUCK OFF.

If you don't like my Ad hominems then try not being such a lying ass.

One Degree wrote:Guns are also beneficial.
Only if you use it to blow your own fool head off.

Gun control works, even if dipshits won't BELEIVE it because of their feelings:
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific ... aves-lives

A huge international study of gun control finds strong evidence that it actually works
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/ ... l-evidence
#14902032
One Degree wrote:My reference was to opioids which are the current drugs being politicized. They are legal and they are deadly and they are easily obtainable. We don’t ban them because they are also beneficial. Guns are also beneficial.

Well, opiods are a controlled substance. So "drug control" is another thing that doesn't always work very well, considering we lose more people to overdoses each year in the United States than soldiers we lost in the Vietnam war in ten years. In fact, it is a much bigger problem than gun violence.

Godstud wrote:@blackjack21 Go to fucking hell you troll, if all you're going to to is pick individual sentences and words of my posts to respond to.

Apparently, the pope says that hell doesn't exist. I didn't pick individual words and sentences. I ripped apart your whole argument. I also pointed out that once again you call people stupid without editing your grammar first. If you want to be condescending, at least show a little more effort.

Godstud wrote:You like to change the topic until we aren't even discussing what's the actual topic.

Law and law enforcement are the topic. You put forward the idea that knives aren't a big threat. I posted you a machete fight among refugees in Germany. I'll leave you with another substantive bit here:

London murder rate beats New York as stabbings surge
Yeah, I know nobody likes it when you say, "I told ya so." Well...

Godstud wrote:Obviously, in your trailer park they don't have advanced education past grade 2.

Actually, I had to pay $12k in property taxes last year, most of it for local schools. So with your education and brilliant mind, do you think it is a wise idea to try to tow a 3150 sq. ft. two-story house with a post tension slab foundation behind a truck? I've never really thought of it as a trailer.

Godstud wrote:Being senile is no reason to be uneducated.

It's a reason to be incoherent.
#14902033
Again, in your moronic attempt to bypass any argument, you ignore FACTS and STUDIES to put out an irrelevant post about London. You're a troll, and nothing more.

blackjack21 wrote:It's a reason to be incoherent.
That you are. :knife:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Are You an Individual?

I'm sure many will join and it will be a meaningf[…]

It’s called the court of public opinion for a rea[…]

The DNC is the reason that the Democratic Party is[…]

2018 US Elections

... and last but not least …. groping women and w[…]