Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

[iceberg]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

so - you can't back up your statement you call fact that the AR15 is the weapon of choice?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why are "murderous" people allowed to walk amongst us? And, my right to keep and bear arms is ALL about safety. That you would leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law is disgusting.

You obviously didn't even bother to read my post, did you? Why do I even bother?

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Why do you advocate for stripping hundreds of millions of people of their rights because of inept government and two crazy people?

I find it hard to believe that's just reactionary, it seems more like Marxist subversive to me.

 

[iceberg]

You obviously didn't even bother to read my post, did you? Why do I even bother?

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Why do you advocate for stripping hundreds of millions of people of their rights because of inept government and crazy people?

easier than learning.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[hunarcy]

Why are "murderous" people allowed to walk amongst us? And, my right to keep and bear arms is ALL about safety. That you would leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law is disgusting.

You obviously didn't even bother to read my post, did you? Why do I even bother?

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

 

[OldLady]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

And there you go...supporting the ban I've seen you promote again and again.

There is no other logical choice, when presented as Iceberg so carefully has.
I would prefer to leave folks' hunting guns and hand guns for self protection alone. And a shotgun for the critters. But he insists they're all just as deadly and as popular for killing folks.
Look, I get it that mass shootings like Parkland and Vegas and Pulse and San Bernardino are an infinitesimal amount of the gun deaths in this country but they are so awful. If you look at the gun of choice in the large mass shootings that have happened in the past year, they used AR's or a variant. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR--killing masses of people fast.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You obviously didn't even bother to read my post, did you? Why do I even bother?

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Like I said, give an inch, and they'll take a mile. Enough is enough, STFU with that shit. Bring back Mental Hospitals. No, Big Pharma cannot solve the problem of crazies in society, no pill fixes that, reality. They need to be locked away in an institution. Stop giving kids mind-altering drugs.

 

[OldLady]

You obviously didn't even bother to read my post, did you? Why do I even bother?

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Well, apparently there were about 200 types of guns banned the last time. People seemed to get along just fine, though. Based on what Iceberg has said, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

And there you go...supporting the ban I've seen you promote again and again.

There is no other logical choice, when presented as Iceberg so carefully has.
I would prefer to leave folks' hunting guns and hand guns for self protection alone. And a shotgun for the critters. But he insists they're all just as deadly and as popular for killing folks.
Look, I get it that mass shootings like Parkland and Vegas and Pulse and San Bernardino are an infinitesimal amount of the gun deaths in this country but they are so awful. If you look at the gun of choice in the large mass shootings that have happened in the past year, they used AR's or a variant. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR--killing masses of people fast.

And before the mass shootings, there was the bank robbery that led California to ban SKS rifles. And before that, it was taking pistols and revolvers off the street. And, before that, it was getting rid of Saturday night specials. Your sense of safety does not justify infringing on MY rights.

 

[iceberg]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

And there you go...supporting the ban I've seen you promote again and again.

There is no other logical choice, when presented as Iceberg so carefully has.
I would prefer to leave folks' hunting guns and hand guns for self protection alone. And a shotgun for the critters. But he insists they're all just as deadly and as popular for killing folks.
Look, I get it that mass shootings like Parkland and Vegas and Pulse and San Bernardino are an infinitesimal amount of the gun deaths in this country but they are so awful. If you look at the gun of choice in the large mass shootings that have happened in the past year, they used AR's or a variant. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR--killing masses of people fast.

but *giggle* we're not coming for your guns...

and i did not insist all are the same - this is you making up shit cause you don't understand the facts.

like the AR being the weapon of choice when i've proven several times it's not.

 

[hunarcy]

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong, you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Well, apparently there were about 200 types of guns banned the last time. People seemed to get along just fine, though. Based on what Iceberg has said, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

200 types of rifles banned and it didn't change the crime rate at all.

 

[OldLady]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

so - you can't back up your statement you call fact that the AR15 is the weapon of choice?

What was used in San Bernardino? Pulse? Vegas? Parkland?
Answer me.

 

[OldLady]

If you had read my post, you would realize I am not trying "to leave (you) powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law..."

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Well, apparently there were about 200 types of guns banned the last time. People seemed to get along just fine, though. Based on what Iceberg has said, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

200 types of rifles banned and it didn't change the crime rate at all.

Mass shootings sure soared after the ban expired. It held the lid on while it lasted.

 

[iceberg]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

so - you can't back up your statement you call fact that the AR15 is the weapon of choice?

What was used in San Bernardino? Pulse? Vegas? Parkland?
Answer me.

so now we are cherry picking?

all i said was the handgun was used in many more shootings than the AR so you pick AR shootings and NOT the handgun ones.

then you wonder why this is so fucking difficult to talk about with you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

And there you go...supporting the ban I've seen you promote again and again.

There is no other logical choice, when presented as Iceberg so carefully has.
I would prefer to leave folks' hunting guns and hand guns for self protection alone. And a shotgun for the critters. But he insists they're all just as deadly and as popular for killing folks.
Look, I get it that mass shootings like Parkland and Vegas and Pulse and San Bernardino are an infinitesimal amount of the gun deaths in this country but they are so awful. If you look at the gun of choice in the large mass shootings that have happened in the past year, they used AR's or a variant. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR--killing masses of people fast.

No, they're for defending one's self against multiple criminals, or possibly a tyrannical government. In case you didn't know, they roam in packs. That's a safety measure to thwart tyranny the Founding Fathers made sure to instill at the beginning of this American country.

Do people misuse tools? Sometimes they do. I'm sure I could pull up sickening machete and hammer and nailgun and crossbow murders as well.

By and large people do not, therefore there is no cause to punish them.

 

[Marion Morrison]

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Well, apparently there were about 200 types of guns banned the last time. People seemed to get along just fine, though. Based on what Iceberg has said, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

200 types of rifles banned and it didn't change the crime rate at all.

Mass shootings sure soared after the ban expired. It held the lid on while it lasted.

Bullshit! Harris and Klebold used an "Assault weapon ban" compliant firearm. Pipe bomb, too.

 

[iceberg]

My freedoms does NOT let murderous folk own guns. That is THEIR freedom and can be adjudicated away from them if they are truly murderous. When you want to limit my freedom because of something someone else might do, you are trying to leave me powerless when a criminal will just ignore the law." I realize you're trying, but the lipstick does not change the pig into a horse.

Why are you powerless if you still have your guns except for the AR-type rifles?

Because it's not just the AR-type rifles that are being targeted, as you should know. Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives - CNN

Well, apparently there were about 200 types of guns banned the last time. People seemed to get along just fine, though. Based on what Iceberg has said, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

200 types of rifles banned and it didn't change the crime rate at all.

Mass shootings sure soared after the ban expired. It held the lid on while it lasted.

quote your source please.

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?

these studies refute your "facts".

 

[TNHarley]

emotion emotion emotion
blah blah blah
Ignorance ignorance ignorance
blah blah blah
^^^entire argument against guns

 

[The Derp]

I wish you wouldn't write such things. I wish you knew more about what the issue is and instead of wanting to limit my rights when I have done nothing wrong

1. Just because you've done nothing wrong so far, doesn't mean you won't later on; and there's no way to tell if you will.

2. Your gun ownership isn't a "need", but a "want".

3. By merely taking a gun into your home, you are adding to the supply of guns from which criminals steal.

you really were devoted to dealing with everyone's rights and our safety in a meaningful way. But, in answer to your question, I did read your post.

There is no such thing as "gun safety" because guns are inherently unsafe; their function is unsafe, their design is unsafe. They're unsafe to use, unsafe to store, and unsafe to own. Their sole function, maiming and killing, are inherently unsafe functions. The sole reason you want a gun is because you want it, not that you need it, not that you're entitled to it, just that you want it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'm trying to stay moderate on this. Iceberg is not making it easy.

banning the next feature as you discover it is not moderate. it's very liberal and very gun grabbing.

you don't make it easy when you say things like "weapon of choice" and can't / won't back it up. so don't act like this is all on me for why we're having difficulty talking over this. i'm open to your views that you back up and show support for. i'm not open to "weapon of choice" when i know better.

You've convinced me, then. Ban 'em all.

so - you can't back up your statement you call fact that the AR15 is the weapon of choice?

What was used in San Bernardino? Pulse? Vegas? Parkland?
Answer me.

Pistol/Pistol+AR variant/AR variant with 10-round mag.