Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

[jillian]

On Friday (March 30), a large group of students from Rockledge High School in Brevard County, Florida, staged a walkout to show their support of the second amendment and the right to bear arms, WFTV.com and Fox News reported.

Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

why aren't you whining and complaining and talking about how they should stick to eating tide pods?

 

[OldLady]

I disagree with you that the AR is a target because of how it looks, not how it functions. That is a myth you folks are using to console yourselves, but it isn't true. It functions in the way it was designed--to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. That is why it is the favorite with mass shooters.

then please tell me how gun a is functionally different than gun b. what does it do that gun 2 will not?

california legal AR15

H&K Sporting Rifle:

your overall lack of understanding of guns does not constitute our desire to "console ourselves" in a lie. i wish you'd stick to facts and stop demonizing people vs. learning the differences themselves to give you a better vantage point in these discussions.

if your goal is to reduce shootings, the AR15 isn't the most popular weapon to do this. do i need to look that up for you or do you agree these are handguns that are close to being used twice as much in shootings?

When you guys use this argument, it leads me down Derp's path. You don't want me to go there, so try a different approach.

you mean in that you can't prove what you say?

you keep making emotional based claims and oldlady - i'm TRYING to understand them. you keep demonizing people who defend gun rights with platitudes and emotion, but short on facts.

i feel you are targeting the AR cause of how it looks. you say more or less no it's designed to kill. so i show you a traditional rifle and ask for the differences in why you don't come after the "traditional" looking gun and it seems you are just getting frustrated because you can't answer some pretty simple questions.

you either understand what you're out to ban or you don't. so far, you don't.

It's really odd, Iceberg, but I don't feel emotional in the least, and my argument is based on solid factual articles on AR's and mass shootings.
If the two guns you posted are equally deadly and completely identical in their operation and ease of use and etc. etc., then I guess they need to be banned as well.
But we know the AR was designed to kill as many folks as possible as quickly as possible at close range. The bullets speed up in the barrel to create maximum damage, and the grip and the minimal kickback make it a very easy gun to shoot. That is why they are favored by mass shooters. Ease of kill. Rapidity of kill. Designed for large capacity magazines. Available at all your favorite sporting goods stores.

1) they are not favored by mass shooters. those are handguns.
Weapons used in mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2017 | Statistic

i presented this before and for *some* reason, it was overlooked. so the AR and it's "look alikes" are a distant second as the "favored weapon.

2) now you want to ban the other because YOU can't name a difference. so vs. learn and understand, its ban. if you ban things based off how you feel and not facts, what would YOU call it?

3) barrel rifling - all guns have this. at least any made in the last 100 years.

4) a .22 is easy to shoot also. most guns these days are.

and you revert back to liberal powerpoint bullets which do not have facts nor tell the whole story.

but now - we do come to your "well if this gun does the same then it should be banned too" OF WHICH you said "giggle, we're not coming for your guns".

yet the more you learn about them and the less functional differences there actually are between what you see and how they perform, you are in fact coming for the guns.

you are coming from an emotional "how i feel" standpoint, not on facts. bout all there is to it.

i get you hate guns. i get you see no use for them. i agree many shooters will use them because of the look not because of the functionality because again, the other gun and most semi-automatic guns will do the same thing. just not LOOK mean and nasty OF WHICH i said you were targeting this gun for OF WHICH you said you're not OF WHICH it would appear you are cause you can't name the physical differences between them OF WHICH there really are not many.

we do agree that background checks need to be overhauled. after that you go to "i don't like them they should go" and i try to stay with facts and no, we're not getting very far this way because you don't want to get into a factual debate or you'll "derp" out.

got it.

we do agree that background checks need to be overhauled
Well, that's good.
I just don't see why the facts I've read (and you can read them in the links provided by the Doc, too) are less factual than yours. I'm serious, though, that if they are absolutely identical, the other should also be banned. From what I've read, they are NOT identical.

 

[OldLady]

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

 

[The Derp]

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

He says he supports "overhauling" the background checks, but doesn't say what that means. I think he just says that because he knows it's a point of compromise, but the reality is that he's not for any overhaul that could result in him not passing the background check.

 

[iceberg]

then please tell me how gun a is functionally different than gun b. what does it do that gun 2 will not?

california legal AR15

H&K Sporting Rifle:

your overall lack of understanding of guns does not constitute our desire to "console ourselves" in a lie. i wish you'd stick to facts and stop demonizing people vs. learning the differences themselves to give you a better vantage point in these discussions.

if your goal is to reduce shootings, the AR15 isn't the most popular weapon to do this. do i need to look that up for you or do you agree these are handguns that are close to being used twice as much in shootings?

When you guys use this argument, it leads me down Derp's path. You don't want me to go there, so try a different approach.

you mean in that you can't prove what you say?

you keep making emotional based claims and oldlady - i'm TRYING to understand them. you keep demonizing people who defend gun rights with platitudes and emotion, but short on facts.

i feel you are targeting the AR cause of how it looks. you say more or less no it's designed to kill. so i show you a traditional rifle and ask for the differences in why you don't come after the "traditional" looking gun and it seems you are just getting frustrated because you can't answer some pretty simple questions.

you either understand what you're out to ban or you don't. so far, you don't.

It's really odd, Iceberg, but I don't feel emotional in the least, and my argument is based on solid factual articles on AR's and mass shootings.
If the two guns you posted are equally deadly and completely identical in their operation and ease of use and etc. etc., then I guess they need to be banned as well.
But we know the AR was designed to kill as many folks as possible as quickly as possible at close range. The bullets speed up in the barrel to create maximum damage, and the grip and the minimal kickback make it a very easy gun to shoot. That is why they are favored by mass shooters. Ease of kill. Rapidity of kill. Designed for large capacity magazines. Available at all your favorite sporting goods stores.

1) they are not favored by mass shooters. those are handguns.
Weapons used in mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2017 | Statistic

i presented this before and for *some* reason, it was overlooked. so the AR and it's "look alikes" are a distant second as the "favored weapon.

2) now you want to ban the other because YOU can't name a difference. so vs. learn and understand, its ban. if you ban things based off how you feel and not facts, what would YOU call it?

3) barrel rifling - all guns have this. at least any made in the last 100 years.

4) a .22 is easy to shoot also. most guns these days are.

and you revert back to liberal powerpoint bullets which do not have facts nor tell the whole story.

but now - we do come to your "well if this gun does the same then it should be banned too" OF WHICH you said "giggle, we're not coming for your guns".

yet the more you learn about them and the less functional differences there actually are between what you see and how they perform, you are in fact coming for the guns.

you are coming from an emotional "how i feel" standpoint, not on facts. bout all there is to it.

i get you hate guns. i get you see no use for them. i agree many shooters will use them because of the look not because of the functionality because again, the other gun and most semi-automatic guns will do the same thing. just not LOOK mean and nasty OF WHICH i said you were targeting this gun for OF WHICH you said you're not OF WHICH it would appear you are cause you can't name the physical differences between them OF WHICH there really are not many.

we do agree that background checks need to be overhauled. after that you go to "i don't like them they should go" and i try to stay with facts and no, we're not getting very far this way because you don't want to get into a factual debate or you'll "derp" out.

got it.

we do agree that background checks need to be overhauled
Well, that's good.
I just don't see why the facts I've read (and you can read them in the links provided by the Doc, too) are less factual than yours. I'm serious, though, that if they are absolutely identical, the other should also be banned. From what I've read, they are NOT identical.

the biggest point i'm making here is that the left doesn't know WHAT they want - they just want the violence gone.

who doesn't?

you say the AR is the weapon of choice - i show a factual article that says it is not. it is the handgun, so where are you getting that this is a weapon of choice for the shooters? show me the study that proves this and i'm in to listen. promise. but when you say things like it *IS* the weapon of choice w/o backing it up, no i can't call those facts. just opinions.

and then the left says "we only want this gun gone" but as they learn the functionality is the same but the look is different, they then just demand THAT gun go also - like you're doing now. you're wanting things banned you simply don't understand and you HAVE to understand how frustrating that is to the people NOT in favor of banning guns.

and if those guns are not identical then tell me what the AR will do the 2nd rifle won't?

i'll give you a couple.
collapsable stock. only most guns have this as an option.
30 round magazines. great. we can ban those but now we have speed loaders that make reloading even fixed mags simple.

and that's really about it. except now that when you learn what you're asking for isn't what you thought it was, you shift the argument to still ban things you have shown you don't understand. HOWEVER - i do appreciate your reading up on it and making that effort. for that, thank you. it's much easier to talk about these things if you know the ins and outs of the guns themselves. otherwise yes you come across as emotional, not factual.

99.9% of the people who own guns do so legally and follow the rules and are of no danger to anyone at all. yet they are demonized for the assholes out there determined to hurt people any way they can.

it's a problem with our culture that guns are a product of, but certainly not the root cause.

 

[hunarcy]

You want to give us a list of folks who contribute to the NRA?
Why is it any less acceptable for a gun control group to have big $ support when it is perfectly alright with you for the NRA to have it and use it to influence legislation. Well, you're finally going to have a little pushback, is all.

The NRA isn't working to undermine anyone else's rights or take away their property.

Sorry, Pete, but things have gone too far. Gun owners have got to realize that their freedoms are allowing murderous folk to own guns, too. It has to be dealt with; we can't ignore it any longer. The 2nd is not going to go away, but the way I see it, I have rights too, and so do the kids who have to walk to school each morning in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. Why is our safety so completely unimportant?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Pop23]

Glad to hear about your support of rapists, but you are going on ignore now until you grow up

Rapists armed with guns stolen from people just like you.

seabass with lasers on their heads!

Every single "illegal gun" starts off as a gun legally purchased by a "responsible gun owner". Then the "responsible gun owner" makes the choice to bring that gun into their home, where it is a target for thieves. So why are you advocating increasing the supply of guns for thieves to steal? Because you can't defend yourself without a gun. Which means you're either incredibly weak, lazy, or a criminal yourself.

every single "illegal hammer" starts off as a legally purchased hammer by a "responsible hammer owner". Then the "responsible hammer owner" makes the choice to bring the hammer into their home, where it is a target for thieves. So why are you advocating increasing the supply of hammers for thieves to steal? Because you can't defend yourself without a hammer. Which means you're either incredibly weak, lazy, or a criminal yourself.

Which is kinda crazy, but it is after all, your logic, not mine.

 

[toobfreak]

On Friday (March 30), a large group of students from Rockledge High School in Brevard County, Florida, staged a walkout to show their support of the second amendment and the right to bear arms, WFTV.com and Fox News reported.

Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

Where is the big media coverage of this? I've heard and seen nothing! What are all the gun-grabbing commies afraid of, free debate in an open forum where people get to hear two sides? Can we get this group together with Hogg and his little psycho-bitch Cuban Nazi lezbo pal? I bet the pro-America kids kick their fucking asses.

 

[OldLady]

You want to give us a list of folks who contribute to the NRA?
Why is it any less acceptable for a gun control group to have big $ support when it is perfectly alright with you for the NRA to have it and use it to influence legislation. Well, you're finally going to have a little pushback, is all.

The NRA isn't working to undermine anyone else's rights or take away their property.

Sorry, Pete, but things have gone too far. Gun owners have got to realize that their freedoms are allowing murderous folk to own guns, too. It has to be dealt with; we can't ignore it any longer. The 2nd is not going to go away, but the way I see it, I have rights too, and so do the kids who have to walk to school each morning in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. Why is our safety so completely unimportant?

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..."

 

[Marion Morrison]

75 kids participated compared to hundreds of thousands nationwide on walkout day?

WoW - very impressive - Did the NRA organize this?

Nope! It was "grassroots" unlike the paid-for propaganda march. Probably just some crackers that know what America is about.
Look, stupids: You have your freedom to say what you want, take the 2nd amendment away, and you won't, doh!

 

[iceberg]

now - for background checks. this has proven to fail more than once and allowed people to buy guns who should not have been able to do so.

specific instances:
Even though a community college suspended him for classroom outbursts and confrontations with police, Jared Loughner passed background checks and bought firearms, including the Glock 19 he used in Tucson on Jan. 8, 2011, to kill six and wound 13, including former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Aurora, Colo., James Holmes passed background checks to amass an arsenal of two Glocks, a Remington shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15, even though he was seeing a psychiatrist who thought he was dangerous enough to report him to campus authorities.

A student, Seung Hui Cho, who shot and killed 32 people and himself, was able to pass a background check and buy Glock 19 and Walther .22-caliber handguns even though a court had found him mentally ill.

Then-Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine closed the loophole by executive order, but the episode exposed the system's gaps. States submit records on a voluntary basis and define for themselves which cases do - and do not - fall within the federal guidelines.

the orlando shooter and now parkland, neither of these 2 should have been allowed to buy a gun.

the states need to share their information. period. i don't believe we do it across the board and things fall through.
if you are under psychiatric care, the physician can determine if you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun and the government needs to establish how they can report on this, and then give the "ok" should that day ever arise.
the military MUST ensure their dishonorable discharges are a part of the background checks. any violent tendencies should be noted and taken into consideration.
if you've used a gun in a crime, you can't own one for a minimum of "x" number of years and you can ask to have that removed after showing you're no longer a danger.
if you do it again you can never again own a gun
if you've used guns to threaten people in domestic violence the local authorities should determine if you can keep those guns, used or not.
if you threaten to shoot people on social media and the pattern continues, you're subject to a review and loss of gun rights cause you can't control your emotions.

ALL OF THESE will also have a due process tied to it that is clear and easy to understand and a reply / decision must be given in a reasonable timeframe. all of these would never fly but they are talking points in what we can do and at least try to clean up this area that has proven to be a problem that can be addressed.

there *are* things we can and should do in order to better review just who is buying these guns but we're not going to get to this step if the left keeps ignoring what we can do and going straight for banning guns.

 

[Marion Morrison]

On Friday (March 30), a large group of students from Rockledge High School in Brevard County, Florida, staged a walkout to show their support of the second amendment and the right to bear arms, WFTV.com and Fox News reported.

Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

Four kids walked out

Why should I be impressed?

They weren't paid to demonstrate.

This is a joke... 200,000 people marched in Washington and you complain that the Media didn't give the same coverage to 75 doing a 20 min walk out...

Seriously..

And your only defense is to claim without any proof that kids were paid by Billionaires to do that... No proof just wild speculation...

And they didn't even make their own signs - LoL

We had 1500 kids walk out of a single high school (Boise High) on walkout day.

That was impressive

How many teachers encouraged it? How many teachers got a memo from the Teacher's Union to encourage it? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[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.

 

[hunarcy]

The NRA isn't working to undermine anyone else's rights or take away their property.

Sorry, Pete, but things have gone too far. Gun owners have got to realize that their freedoms are allowing murderous folk to own guns, too. It has to be dealt with; we can't ignore it any longer. The 2nd is not going to go away, but the way I see it, I have rights too, and so do the kids who have to walk to school each morning in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. Why is our safety so completely unimportant?

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.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

75 kids for 20 minutes

Yeah, well they spent their own money unlike your little "hero's" who had millions spent on them and their "protest". Sooooo, freedom loving kids vs billionaire supplied "useful idiots". I know who I support more.

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.

 

[OldLady]

Sorry, Pete, but things have gone too far. Gun owners have got to realize that their freedoms are allowing murderous folk to own guns, too. It has to be dealt with; we can't ignore it any longer. The 2nd is not going to go away, but the way I see it, I have rights too, and so do the kids who have to walk to school each morning in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. Why is our safety so completely unimportant?

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?

 

[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.

Yep, OldLady just boarded the Wackadoodle Express train to Nowheresville.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are situations where you do. Sorry, not all people are good.

If not all people are good, why do you want to let all people buy guns?

Also, there is no situation where a gun is the only thing you can use to defend yourself.

However, there are many when a gun is the best thing. What's your weapon of choice for when 3 illegals kick your door in to rob and rape you and your wife?

The Derp probably swings both ways so he might enjoy being raped.