How Did 15-18 Year Old Kids Organize A Nationwide Movement In Less Than A Week?

[JakeStarkey]

I am not Alt Right: lying, cheating, ignoring facts, violence, making up alt facts and fake news is all Alt Right like you, Fang.

 

[WinterBorn]

These little kids can't even decide which videogame to play next. Yet have managed to set a date for a March on our nation's capitol in less than a week. Is anyone really buying this? Not to mention they magically came up with the same tired old talking points Democrats have failingly foisted for decades...
So... How'd they do it? Or did they at all...?

Social media. The think their lives are in danger and that the "adults" aren't doing shit. So they had an idea and are stepping up.

No, this is not some dem plot. No, this is not just a front for adults who hate guns.

And don't dismiss these kids. They don't seem to be kidding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These "kids" want gun right and NRA ass.

They are going to kick it really really really hard.

 

[Nosmo King]

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Wow! You are just super-ignorant when it comes to guns, huh?

Someone that ignorant should not be talking about things of which he clearly does not know.

What does the AR in "AR-15" stand for?

Also, how old are you? Holy crap!

Your argument is ridiculous. Gun lovers would love nothing more than to bog down reform with semantics. A primrose path leading to the inevitable continuation of mass shootings. It's as if you could legitimately argue that because someone does not know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland engine, they should have no voice in discussing automobile safety.

 

[Nosmo King]

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only are these kids serious, about 1/4 of them will be old enough to vote in 2018. And they are working to get a group that has traditionly not hardly voted out to vote in high numbers. After all, they have good reason. The life they save by taking action may be their own. By 2020, 3/4's of them will be old enough to vote.

Yes, they are serious, and, across the nation, this message is resonating. There has hardly been a state in which there has not been a school shot up. These students are sick of reading about people there age dying because the NRA is protecting the profits of the people making the weapons of war.

 

[BlackSand]

Now you're just reiterating what I already pointed out --- you're butthurt that documentation exists.

And you can't explain why that is. And we already established that.

It's kind of hard to explain why I am butthurt because I am not ...

The only thing we have established is that you are posting nonsense.
It seems to be a reiteration because you're still posting nonsense.

.

 

[koshergrl]

These little kids can't even decide which videogame to play next. Yet have managed to set a date for a March on our nation's capitol in less than a week. Is anyone really buying this? Not to mention they magically came up with the same tired old talking points Democrats have failingly foisted for decades...
So... How'd they do it? Or did they at all...?

Leftists putting our kids at risk in every way they can.

Leftists always militarize the babies..after stealing them.

How the Hitler Youth Turned a Generation of Kids Into Nazis

Children in the Ranks | The Maoists’ Use of Child Soldiers in Nepal

 

[boedicca]

The same way kids came up with this - brainwashing in school:

 

[ABikerSailor]

No. It's because you're unnecessarily lethal.

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Well, That does not describe an AR. An AR is just a sporting rifle for varmints and such it was not designed for anything else... period

Really? Then why did they call it a semi automatic version of the military's M16?

Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia

The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

 

[jillian]

If even this solution is beyond the grasp of the gun lover's mind, we must ask why are they in the debate at all.

No one is really debating anything ... They are expressing their desires.

So far ... The left has come up with a list of things they want accomplished ...
As well as promises they think they can provide for.

But in reality there is really nothing to argue ... The left simply wants to take away something the gun owners already have.
They have nothing to negotiate with other than their desire to limit the liberties of others.

I mean damn ... Good luck, not that it is going to help you.

.

if you insist on misrepresenting the ":left' as a homogeneous entity and then lie about what the "left" thinks, I can understand why you think there's no "debate".

btw, I'm not a bad shot.

rightwingnuts really should stop making up things in their heads.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The day they chose for their protest 420, is already pot day, so half the organization is already done. They just want a day off to get high and be free to block traffic and stick it to adults.

Wrong. They chose April 20th, because it is the anniversary of Columbine, one of the first school shootings.

 

[jillian]

The same way kids came up with this - brainwashing in school:

trumploons hate education.

 

[Rustic]

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Well, That does not describe an AR. An AR is just a sporting rifle for varmints and such it was not designed for anything else... period

Really? Then why did they call it a semi automatic version of the military's M16?

Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia

The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

It is not military grade, AR15’s are just sporting rifles just like any other sporting rifle... They are a great way to get new shooters into the sport of hunting and shooting…

 

[AZGAL]

 

[jillian]

The day they chose for their protest 420, is already pot day, so half the organization is already done. They just want a day off to get high and be free to block traffic and stick it to adults.

you have never been correct about anything.



Students and teachers will boycott school until Congress does something about gun violence

 

[ABikerSailor]

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Agreed. I mean, how many rounds do you REALLY need to throw downrange before you reload?

I hunted when I was a kid, and we had lots of guns in the house. However, they were bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, or 6 shooters. I think my Uncle had 1 9mm weapon that held 10 rounds for home defense.

And, when we went hunting, we were only allowed 3 bullets. If you fired those 3 bullets before killing a deer, you had to hike back to the truck (usually a mile or two), get 3 more rounds, and then go back to where the rest of us were.

 

[koshergrl]

The same way kids came up with this - brainwashing in school:

trumploons hate education.

Leftists, on the other hand..

*education*, lefty-style:

 

[koshergrl]

*education* that lefties can get behind.

To Inspire Young Communists, China Turns to ‘Red Army’ Schools

 

[koshergrl]

"German children were particularly important propaganda targets, especially through the institutions of schools and education. By 1936, 97 percent of German teachers belonged to the National Socialist Teachers League. Children, meanwhile, belonged to government organizations from the age of 10.

Jills approves:

"Until the collapse of the Nazi system in 1945, many children had lived their entire lives on a perpetual diet of government propaganda. The situation was so bad that a prolonged period of “denazification” was necessary."
10 Disturbing Pieces of Nazi Education Propaganda