Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

[OldLady]

They didn't even make their own signs. Total sham of a protest.

Yes, I agree the 200,000 who marched on Washington were a sham. Paid for by billionaires who want to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA so they can finally control them and make them the peasants they want them to be.

The BIG LIE ^^^

WW ought to be ashamed, his post manifests a lack of integrity and the morality of a reptile.

Ashamed for what? Not bowing to the billionaires pushing the agenda of gun control? The march on DC was a progressive run event. The far left groups had total control over the entire thing. They wouldn't allow one kid, who's sister was murdered, to speak because he wasn't in lock step with the progressives. That's bullshit, and it is you who should be ashamed. If your goals, and message is so great, you should never be afraid to have a dissenting voice out there.

But no, you stifle any dissenting voices because you know that your arguments are shit and can't stand up to the light of reason.

I know that you're a hack, and a not very bright hack at that. The BIG LIE is a meme you echo which originated as NRA Propaganda.

You're also a jerk, for you attack the character of kids who don't hold to the bullshit that the 2nd A. is sacrosanct (you can look up the word). Many of those protesting have experienced gun violence during their lifetime, up front and personal. Some simply have empathy for the victims, and others realize doing the same F'n thing over and over ("we'll pray for them") is insane and bullshit.

There is no good reason to believe the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed"; it is and has been and will be infringed well into the future, since no rational leader or reasonable person wants every person to be able to buy Any Arm, possess Any Arm, or have Any Arm in their custody and control.

Only a fool supports such a claim. And only a liar inflates the control of those people who should never possess a gun as an infringement, and only a foolish liar believes All Arms ought to be sold on a free market to anyone who may want to buy one.

It is those fools who are forcing moderates to attack the NRA and its policies, and those who echo their policies and continue to deny the 2nd is too important and too valuable to be interfered with. It is not important that any civilian be armed with weapons made for the mass killing of human beings. And the only value is in the profits made by gun makers, gun sellers, the NRA and coffin makers.

You hide your lack of an argument by claiming those who have suffered from an attack are somehow magically protected from having their claims addressed. That is a laughable assertion and merely shows how weak your argument is. It is tragic that those kids suffered what they did. That does not absolve them from having to have a meaningful discussion about their viewpoint.

Merely screaming at people is not discussion. Merely presenting one side of an opinion is not discussion. Only the weak minded, and those with weak arguments deny the ability for others to speak.

People giving a speech advocating their position seldom argue the other side as well. What are you talking about?

 

[iceberg]

How is someone out on a remote farm in Wyoming supposed to keep a pack of wolves out of their henhouse?

Hmm?

What do you do when there's a Diamondback or 8 foot gator in your back yard? How about a bear or cat trying to get into your house? Pack of wild dogs?

Fucking Derps!

Use the shotgun?

If the school shooter would have used one, likely more would have died. BUT THEY'RE OK TO KEEP LEGAL!

You simply cannot, no matter how fucking hard you try, make this shit up folks!

Wouldn't it have been kinda hard to smuggle a shotgun into the school? Kinda longish?

unless pistol grip or "other".

like i said, you show more what you don't know than what you do know about guns in general.

Okay, Iceberg, I'm going to get emotional now.
Kiss my ass. You're worse than fuckin' Chinese water torture and you know it, you drip drip drip troll.

as frustrated as you are now - people who support gun rights feel the very same way when you can't present a single fact (and lord knows i've asked several times) to back up your claims and then make statement that are simply not true and show a general ignorance of guns.

we get just as "frustrated" when we hear the "oh we're not coming for guns" then you say you are now and every action you take born out of ignorance on the topic show us that's what you're doing EVEN IF you don't understand that's what you're doing - of which you don't seem to understand.

like i said - we *all* want the violence gone. your pretending otherwise to demonize gun owners isn't going to fly cause people like me and much much worse will have you back that ass up and prove what you say every time until you get frustrated and move onto something else.

and finally - no. you can't have my guns.

have a nice day.

 

[The Derp]

This article said that guns are stolen every year. .

No, it said 230,000 guns are stolen every year in home burglaries and other property crimes. You didn't believe that, and screamed like a barnyard animal that I provide you with proof. So I did. Now, you are trying to say that guns are stolen every year...yeah, no shit...that's what I've been saying this whole time. You're the one who didn't believe it, and now that there's proof, you try to pretend it doesn't matter. But you're the one who refused to believe from where criminals get their guns because they get them from people exactly like you.

Which means all you "responsible gun owners" keep your guns in places where criminals can find them, and it happens 230,000 times a year. In fact, in the time it took me to respond to your post, 2 guns have been stolen from "responsible gun owners". There's only an 86% chance that each gun owner will even report the gun stolen. I don't like those odds.

Your argument was then that ALL illegal guns were once legal, which this doesn't give a whiff of supporting that.

Of course they're all starting out as legal guns! The only way a gun isn't legal is if it's stolen, and the DOJ says that 230,000 guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners" like you, and those stolen guns are what's fueling crime. That's what the report from the DOJ says. You're just being a little bitch about it because you know your argument for gun ownership is toast.

That is what you need to prove, your assertion that all illegal guns were once legal. Try gain, derp, derp, derp ...

Sigh...what a dumbass.

All guns start out as legal guns. No gun "falls off a truck" on the way to the gun retailer. All guns that end up in the hands of criminals, just like the study I linked to said, are "hot" which means they're stolen. Stolen from whom? From "responsible gun owners" who bought them legally.

You and your shitty gun are adding to the pool of guns out there for criminals to steal. You made that active choice to do that, which means I hold you equally responsible for those guns getting into the hands of criminals, and for what those criminals end up doing with those guns. Why? Because you made the choice to contribute to the supply of guns for criminals.

 

[Pop23]

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns..

Ofg course it will. Did you not read the headline of the article I linked to?

'HOT' GUNS FUELING CRIME

So clearly criminals steal guns from people like you, then use those guns in their crimes.

So choking off their supply would make sense, would it not?

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws.

I don't care if they have to go through those extreme measures in order to get a gun. The risk they pose to themselves by doing that, however, is a risk they likely won't pursue. What criminal (who usually breaks into your home to steal your gun) would know the intricacies of import/export law? Very few, if any. Why not try it and let's find out!?

And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

They can try, sure, but good luck trying to find one to do that for you if doing it will land them in jail. Why would they risk their freedom for your fetish? Why would anyone?

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

Your excuses are paper-thin and easily destroyed, as I did here.

"I don't care if they have to go through those extreme measures in order to get a gun. The risk they pose to themselves by doing that, however, is a risk they likely won't pursue. What criminal (who usually breaks into your home to steal your gun) would know the intricacies of import/export law? Very few, if any. Why not try it and let's find out!?"

Dumbass, breaking into someones home is, in and of itself AN EXTREME MEASURE. Be far easier to simply head on down to the local crime boss, lay down a couple hundred bucks, grab a gun and have free reign OF ALL THE HOUSES, cuz Son, NO ONE ELSE WOULD OWN A GUN!

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is those fools who are forcing moderates to attack the NRA and its policies, and those who echo their policies and continue to deny the 2nd is too important and too valuable to be interfered with.

It's precisely because of this reason why I now support only a permanent ban on gun ownership.

I don't!

I support each state the right to license anyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm A license which can with due process be suspended or revoked by the State Court, for reasons established by the State Legislature.

I also support all guns be registered with the State's Dept. of Justice, and any transfer of a gun require the seller and buyer to be legally able to complete such a contract of sale.

Both of these regulations ought to be left up to the residents of the State to decide the issue.

The devil is in the details, and would and should be decided by We the People of each state, and the leaders we elect; not the NRA!

 

[iceberg]

 

[The Derp]

the boy is slippin. Someone call 911, I think he's headin to the roof!

You're the one who talked out of your ass, after screeching like a barnyard animal when you accused me of doing it. Only, I presented you with facts and links...you haven't.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I hate to tell you this, but what you're arguing doesn't make sense.

Politifact says your so - called "facts" don't hold water. I believe the word they use is FALSE.

Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?

I used to be a lobbyist for the NRA. When the NRA began selling its members out, I left and started looking at the gun issue differently.

In 1989 Patrick Purdy took an AK 47 and killed five children and wounded 32 more on a school playground on my birthday. It became obvious that someone outside the political realm should study this. And, not being satisfied with the bumper sticker slogan solutions of the anti-gun lobby and the NRA on the other side, I took that job.

I've watched the government outlaw fully auto weapons, ban semi-automatic imports, pass the Assault Weapons Ban, pass the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment, Pass the Brady Bill (that eviscerated the Fourth Amendment) AND I've even lived through the government passing ex post facto laws - all the while telling us that it was "reasonable gun control" and the left wasn't after the guns.

There is no such thing as "reasonable gun control." The mass shootings could easily be drastically reduced, but both the NRA AND the anti-gun lobby make their money off the rhetoric and neither have any reason to seek out a solution to reduce the actual violence without gun control. Make no mistake about it. Every time one weapon is used more than another, it gives the left a pretext to outlaw firearms. The right, being intimidated by the powerful left ALWAYS compromises and caves.

Nobody gives a rip about saving lives. This is all about control. And, if you outlawed every gun in the country, you'd get worse violence in this country. The left don't get it. We are not Mexico, China or Japan. And we have a guaranteed Right to keep and bear Arms. But, ALL mass shootings have some commonalities. Address those commonalities, fewer people will die and the pretext for gun control disappears.

Alright, you've piqued my interest. Are you willing to share what those commonalities are and how to address them? Fewer people dying is my goal. So how?

 

[OldLady]

When's the last time you killed a wild boar or gator, faggot? I bet you live in a "flat" in either UK or Russia.

First of all, why the hell would I kill either a wild boar or a gator?

Secondly, I've reported you for abusive language.

Thirdly, unlike you, I don't have to posture and play make-believe about my own personal circumstances in order to lend my argument credibility.

Finally, Russia? You're the one with the suspicious profile and broken English. Are you projecting here?

As for snakes, I've killed them with a potato rake and a shovel.

Great! So you don't need a gun then.

AA pack of wild dogs or boar is a different story.

Not really. A bow works just as well as a gun. An airhorn can be blown to scare wild dogs away (dogs don't like loud noises). You just don't know how to handle yourself around wild animals, it seems. That's because you're lazy AF.

You can report people for abusive language?

 

[iceberg]

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.

I hate to tell you this, but what you're arguing doesn't make sense.

Politifact says your so - called "facts" don't hold water. I believe the word they use is FALSE.

Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?

I used to be a lobbyist for the NRA. When the NRA began selling its members out, I left and started looking at the gun issue differently.

In 1989 Patrick Purdy took an AK 47 and killed five children and wounded 32 more on a school playground on my birthday. It became obvious that someone outside the political realm should study this. And, not being satisfied with the bumper sticker slogan solutions of the anti-gun lobby and the NRA on the other side, I took that job.

I've watched the government outlaw fully auto weapons, ban semi-automatic imports, pass the Assault Weapons Ban, pass the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment, Pass the Brady Bill (that eviscerated the Fourth Amendment) AND I've even lived through the government passing ex post facto laws - all the while telling us that it was "reasonable gun control" and the left wasn't after the guns.

There is no such thing as "reasonable gun control." The mass shootings could easily be drastically reduced, but both the NRA AND the anti-gun lobby make their money off the rhetoric and neither have any reason to seek out a solution to reduce the actual violence without gun control. Make no mistake about it. Every time one weapon is used more than another, it gives the left a pretext to outlaw firearms. The right, being intimidated by the powerful left ALWAYS compromises and caves.

Nobody gives a rip about saving lives. This is all about control. And, if you outlawed every gun in the country, you'd get worse violence in this country. The left don't get it. We are not Mexico, China or Japan. And we have a guaranteed Right to keep and bear Arms. But, ALL mass shootings have some commonalities. Address those commonalities, fewer people will die and the pretext for gun control disappears.

i gave her that article also, asking where she got her numbers. it didn't end well.

may the force be with you.

 

[Pop23]

If the school shooter would have used one, likely more would have died. BUT THEY'RE OK TO KEEP LEGAL!

You simply cannot, no matter how fucking hard you try, make this shit up folks!

Wouldn't it have been kinda hard to smuggle a shotgun into the school? Kinda longish?

not with a shortened stock and barrel, just as easy as a AR. But then again, two pistols would have had equal if not greater effect then the AR. But you folks are keen on them AR's.

No, the mass shooters are.

Yeah, it's a good thing the once of us that were horribly bullied, were also NOT on antidepressants and/or ADHA medications. Hell, there might not be a single person left.

Better Apocalypse through pharmaceuticals is what I say!

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

 

[The Derp]

people who support gun rights

You don't support gun rights, you support gun ownership...and you don't even know why you support it. Your reasons shift and change depending on how poorly they are faring in an argument.

You say you have it for personal safety, yet there are other ways to defend yourself.

You say it's for hunting, yet humans have hunted without guns for 49,500 years of our existence.

You say it's to protect your family and property, yet 230,000 guns are stolen every year from homes and property they were bought to protect and only 86% of the time, the "responsible gun owner" notifies the police.

You say it's to provide a check on the government, yet the Constitution gives the government the express ability and power to brutally and ruthlessly squash any domestic insurrection or revolt; a power it's used dozens of times in our 240 year history.

So ultimately, what it boils down to is your personal feelings/fetish which is a want, not a need.

You don't need to own a gun; you want a gun. It's not a necessity, it's a fetish. Which means all your arguments in support of that are emotionally-based since it's a want.

 

[Humorme]

If the school shooter would have used one, likely more would have died. BUT THEY'RE OK TO KEEP LEGAL!

You simply cannot, no matter how fucking hard you try, make this shit up folks!

Wouldn't it have been kinda hard to smuggle a shotgun into the school? Kinda longish?

not with a shortened stock and barrel, just as easy as a AR. But then again, two pistols would have had equal if not greater effect then the AR. But you folks are keen on them AR's.

No, the mass shooters are.

Yeah, it's a good thing the once of us that were horribly bullied, were also NOT on antidepressants and/or ADHA medications. Hell, there might not be a single person left.

Better Apocalypse through pharmaceuticals is what I say!

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

It is a fact that virtually ALL mass shooters (save of political jihadists) have been under the care of a mental health official - MD / psychologist and / or psychiatrist withing the last year and a half of their shooting and virtually all of them are on SSRIs.

It is really nonsensical question to ask why all people on SSRIs don't commit mass shootings. Hell, why don't all the people who smoke cigarettes get cancer? Why don't everybody that got vaccines during the era when autism exploded have that condition?

In the first place, most people taking SSRIs do not meet the medical requirements to even be put on that drug. Some people are genetically more prone to violence. Some people have multiple disorders. The fact is, we don't treat them. We wait until they screw up and then address their issues. Adding insult to injury, we treat those people by tossing them into prison. And the fact is, for every ONE mentally ill person in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 mentally ill people in prison!

Report: Jails House 10 Times More Mentally Ill Than State Hospitals

So, if you separated the mentally ill from the people who had mild depression, you would have a piece of the answer. And most, if not all, of the mass shooters we've seen (save of political jihadists), were doing things that, once the mass shooting was over, the people will lament and say "I'm not a bit surprised."

So, anti gunners and society, in general, LET their fellow man be put into danger only to lobby for gun control.

 

[iceberg]

Wouldn't it have been kinda hard to smuggle a shotgun into the school? Kinda longish?

not with a shortened stock and barrel, just as easy as a AR. But then again, two pistols would have had equal if not greater effect then the AR. But you folks are keen on them AR's.

No, the mass shooters are.

Yeah, it's a good thing the once of us that were horribly bullied, were also NOT on antidepressants and/or ADHA medications. Hell, there might not be a single person left.

Better Apocalypse through pharmaceuticals is what I say!

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

appreciate the first hand knowledge and glad you were able to help him regain some sense of normal behavior.

i'd agree that these "meds" are likely a high reason for the shootings and needs to be evaluated in depth. gun control is simply control and not going to address the anger these people do in fact have. until we address that, we're mired in senseless "gun control" debates.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I hate to tell you this, but what you're arguing doesn't make sense.

Politifact says your so - called "facts" don't hold water. I believe the word they use is FALSE.

Did mass shootings spike 200% since assault weapons ban?

I used to be a lobbyist for the NRA. When the NRA began selling its members out, I left and started looking at the gun issue differently.

In 1989 Patrick Purdy took an AK 47 and killed five children and wounded 32 more on a school playground on my birthday. It became obvious that someone outside the political realm should study this. And, not being satisfied with the bumper sticker slogan solutions of the anti-gun lobby and the NRA on the other side, I took that job.

I've watched the government outlaw fully auto weapons, ban semi-automatic imports, pass the Assault Weapons Ban, pass the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment, Pass the Brady Bill (that eviscerated the Fourth Amendment) AND I've even lived through the government passing ex post facto laws - all the while telling us that it was "reasonable gun control" and the left wasn't after the guns.

There is no such thing as "reasonable gun control." The mass shootings could easily be drastically reduced, but both the NRA AND the anti-gun lobby make their money off the rhetoric and neither have any reason to seek out a solution to reduce the actual violence without gun control. Make no mistake about it. Every time one weapon is used more than another, it gives the left a pretext to outlaw firearms. The right, being intimidated by the powerful left ALWAYS compromises and caves.

Nobody gives a rip about saving lives. This is all about control. And, if you outlawed every gun in the country, you'd get worse violence in this country. The left don't get it. We are not Mexico, China or Japan. And we have a guaranteed Right to keep and bear Arms. But, ALL mass shootings have some commonalities. Address those commonalities, fewer people will die and the pretext for gun control disappears.

But likely there is a clearer reason for the spike in school shootings. Guns were available before the ban, hell, we would store them in our lockers when we planned to hunt after school, but school shootings were rare.

This seems the more likely reason:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

 

[westwall]

Yes, I agree the 200,000 who marched on Washington were a sham. Paid for by billionaires who want to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA so they can finally control them and make them the peasants they want them to be.

The BIG LIE ^^^

WW ought to be ashamed, his post manifests a lack of integrity and the morality of a reptile.

Ashamed for what? Not bowing to the billionaires pushing the agenda of gun control? The march on DC was a progressive run event. The far left groups had total control over the entire thing. They wouldn't allow one kid, who's sister was murdered, to speak because he wasn't in lock step with the progressives. That's bullshit, and it is you who should be ashamed. If your goals, and message is so great, you should never be afraid to have a dissenting voice out there.

But no, you stifle any dissenting voices because you know that your arguments are shit and can't stand up to the light of reason.

I know that you're a hack, and a not very bright hack at that. The BIG LIE is a meme you echo which originated as NRA Propaganda.

You're also a jerk, for you attack the character of kids who don't hold to the bullshit that the 2nd A. is sacrosanct (you can look up the word). Many of those protesting have experienced gun violence during their lifetime, up front and personal. Some simply have empathy for the victims, and others realize doing the same F'n thing over and over ("we'll pray for them") is insane and bullshit.

There is no good reason to believe the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed"; it is and has been and will be infringed well into the future, since no rational leader or reasonable person wants every person to be able to buy Any Arm, possess Any Arm, or have Any Arm in their custody and control.

Only a fool supports such a claim. And only a liar inflates the control of those people who should never possess a gun as an infringement, and only a foolish liar believes All Arms ought to be sold on a free market to anyone who may want to buy one.

It is those fools who are forcing moderates to attack the NRA and its policies, and those who echo their policies and continue to deny the 2nd is too important and too valuable to be interfered with. It is not important that any civilian be armed with weapons made for the mass killing of human beings. And the only value is in the profits made by gun makers, gun sellers, the NRA and coffin makers.

You hide your lack of an argument by claiming those who have suffered from an attack are somehow magically protected from having their claims addressed. That is a laughable assertion and merely shows how weak your argument is. It is tragic that those kids suffered what they did. That does not absolve them from having to have a meaningful discussion about their viewpoint.

Merely screaming at people is not discussion. Merely presenting one side of an opinion is not discussion. Only the weak minded, and those with weak arguments deny the ability for others to speak.

People giving a speech advocating their position seldom argue the other side as well. What are you talking about?

The march on DC refused to allow a kid who's sister was one of those murdered in the shooting. Why? His speech, that he had worked very hard on had no political view, it was merely a remembrance, and a celebration of his sisters life that was taken in such a horrible way. Because he didn't have a political side to it he was denied the ability to read his speech. That takes the "march" out of the realm of a march, and into the realm of propaganda.

 

[iceberg]

When's the last time you killed a wild boar or gator, faggot? I bet you live in a "flat" in either UK or Russia.

First of all, why the hell would I kill either a wild boar or a gator?

Secondly, I've reported you for abusive language.

Thirdly, unlike you, I don't have to posture and play make-believe about my own personal circumstances in order to lend my argument credibility.

Finally, Russia? You're the one with the suspicious profile and broken English. Are you projecting here?

As for snakes, I've killed them with a potato rake and a shovel.

Great! So you don't need a gun then.

AA pack of wild dogs or boar is a different story.

Not really. A bow works just as well as a gun. An airhorn can be blown to scare wild dogs away (dogs don't like loud noises). You just don't know how to handle yourself around wild animals, it seems. That's because you're lazy AF.

You can report people for abusive language?

heh - please let me know if you can.

 

[Pop23]

Wouldn't it have been kinda hard to smuggle a shotgun into the school? Kinda longish?

not with a shortened stock and barrel, just as easy as a AR. But then again, two pistols would have had equal if not greater effect then the AR. But you folks are keen on them AR's.

No, the mass shooters are.

Yeah, it's a good thing the once of us that were horribly bullied, were also NOT on antidepressants and/or ADHA medications. Hell, there might not be a single person left.

Better Apocalypse through pharmaceuticals is what I say!

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

It is a fact that virtually ALL mass shooters (save of political jihadists) have been under the care of a mental health official - MD / psychologist and / or psychiatrist withing the last year and a half of their shooting and virtually all of them are on SSRIs.

It is really nonsensical question to ask why all people on SSRIs don't commit mass shootings. Hell, why don't all the people who smoke cigarettes get cancer? Why don't everybody that got vaccines during the era when autism exploded have that condition?

In the first place, most people taking SSRIs do not meet the medical requirements to even be put on that drug. Some people are genetically more prone to violence. Some people have multiple disorders. The fact is, we don't treat them. We wait until they screw up and then address their issues. Adding insult to injury, we treat those people by tossing them into prison. And the fact is, for every ONE mentally ill person in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 mentally ill people in prison!

Report: Jails House 10 Times More Mentally Ill Than State Hospitals

So, if you separated the mentally ill from the people who had mild depression, you would have a piece of the answer. And most, if not all, of the mass shooters we've seen (save of political jihadists), were doing things that, once the mass shooting was over, the people will lament and say "I'm not a bit surprised."

So, anti gunners and society, in general, LET their fellow man be put into danger only to lobby for gun control.

Not all people on SSRI's are male. Males are far more violent then females. When a male commits suicide it is normally a violent way, females normally take their lifes via overdose or hanging.

Then there is bullying, combined with the way these SSRIs work on the male brain, and the stress of bullying causes these violent outbursts.

 

[The Derp]

Dumbass, breaking into someones home is, in and of itself AN EXTREME MEASURE

Not really since break-ins happen all the time; isn't that what you tell us when you buy a gun for your home? Smuggling guns through imports and exports? That's not something that happens all the time.

Be far easier to simply head on down to the local crime boss

LOL! Why is it that Conservatives shit all over Hollywood, yet their worldview seems entirely informed by Hollywood movies and shows? Good luck finding your local crime boss. Where would you look, on craigslist?

lay down a couple hundred bucks, grab a gun and have free reign OF ALL THE HOUSES, cuz Son, NO ONE ELSE WOULD OWN A GUN!

Wait a second...from where did that local crime boss get the gun if there's no more gun thefts because there's no guns to steal?

 

[Pop23]

not with a shortened stock and barrel, just as easy as a AR. But then again, two pistols would have had equal if not greater effect then the AR. But you folks are keen on them AR's.

No, the mass shooters are.

Yeah, it's a good thing the once of us that were horribly bullied, were also NOT on antidepressants and/or ADHA medications. Hell, there might not be a single person left.

Better Apocalypse through pharmaceuticals is what I say!

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

appreciate the first hand knowledge and glad you were able to help him regain some sense of normal behavior.

i'd agree that these "meds" are likely a high reason for the shootings and needs to be evaluated in depth. gun control is simply control and not going to address the anger these people do in fact have. until we address that, we're mired in senseless "gun control" debates.

He turned out remarkable. 3 18 month tours in Iraq, 2 degrees a lovely wife and a nearly 6 figure salary. Love him every minute of his life.

 

[The Derp]

It is those fools who are forcing moderates to attack the NRA and its policies, and those who echo their policies and continue to deny the 2nd is too important and too valuable to be interfered with.

It's precisely because of this reason why I now support only a permanent ban on gun ownership.

I don't!

I support each state the right to license anyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm A license which can with due process be suspended or revoked by the State Court, for reasons established by the State Legislature.

I also support all guns be registered with the State's Dept. of Justice, and any transfer of a gun require the seller and buyer to be legally able to complete such a contract of sale.

Both of these regulations ought to be left up to the residents of the State to decide the issue.

The devil is in the details, and would and should be decided by We the People of each state, and the leaders we elect; not the NRA!

The problem is that guns cross borders and aren't bound by state borders, which is why only a national policy will work.

Gun crime in Chicago, for instance, is done with guns purchased outside the state of IL and trafficked there via straw purchasing and an "iron pipeline".

Gun control cannot be a state issue because guns can be trafficked across state lines.