Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Cass

Jesus wept.

See all the mis-informed snowflakes out marching to have their rights taken from them. Coming out the the same bullsh*t as usual:

• Ban assault rifles - Already done since 1986
• Background checks - already exist
• New laws - When the old ones are not enforced
• Raise the age limit - The Florida shooter and Maryland shooter were both 17 and had the guns illegally so how did that help
• No need for guns - I bet the kids at the Maryland school don't think so as the resource deputy (Gaskill) stopped that with a gun. Same with the Texas church shooting thanks to Willeford with an AR no less.

The murder rate with rifles (not just ARs, just rifles in general) is one of the lowest, statistically, there are. Pistols, knives, blunt objects, fists, are all much, much higher. Not to mention all the other causes of death.

The problem with America is not gun control, but their mindset. Have a problem with someone, shoot them. Annoyed by your boss, shoot them. Someone insults you, shoot them. Feeling bad, shoot someone.

Nothing will change until they address the cause of the violence, and not focus on the method used especially when that focus is on one brand of one of the lowest forms of murder there is. The buzz words of "assault weapons", and "its all the NRAs fault" won't change anything because when all the legally held guns are gone, and the NRA is disbanded and the murders continue they won't know who else to "pin the tail to".

Grizzly 45

Let the little idiot and his bad copy of Sinead O Connor sidekick continue, they have become the best recruiting Sgts for the NRA and GOA in years. Since they have opened their entitled opinionated traps,NRA membership is up 50, 000 in a MONTH.Not to mind giving the gun industry a good boost as well.

If anything needs to be sorted out in the USA, is it's appaling mental health system, and the responsibility of big pharma selling "wonder drugs" to doctors for depressed teens, who are misdiagnosed with AHAD and pumped full of lithium and other antidepressants.It's a major factor in all of these shootings.99% of the shooters were on,or off their meds as far back as the Mc Donalds in San Ysidro, San Diego in 1984.

Cass

What bothers me is they don't think before speaking, or at least do some research.

I mean here he is saying how the clear backpack program is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TJObNzyc8M

So he is unwilling to surrender this right yet he has no trouble, and sees no comparison, with taking away people's 2nd amendment rights because it won't actually affect him (IOW he won't lose any guns, etc).

I siad this earlier, before and on other threads. These kids are being used in a decade long war between two sides, but they don't know they are. They are being led down a path to take certain rights from them and whether they know it or not it doesn't seem to bother them because none of them are firearm owners or interested in that particular amendment.

However touch on something they do have a vested interest in and then it's "you can't do that".

Grizzly 45

Did himself and his movement no great PR favours with his Hitler style rant and Nazi salute at the rally.:pac:

Grizzly 45

I see we had a bunch of muppetts protesting outside the US embassy as well.Needless to say imported Americans with chips on their shoulders. What is the point in protesting outside a US govt building that [1] is closed on a Saturday and [2] the staff is over 2/3rds Irish??
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/protest-outside-us-embassy-in-dublin-over-gun-control-1.3439484

Sparks

What is the point

Because it's not the staff of the US embassy in Dublin they're talking to.

Let the little idiot and his bad copy of Sinead O Connor sidekick

Yeah, I can't get behind that. They're getting shot at, they get the right to complain about it. End of, far as I'm concerned. They might not be right about the "how" part of fixing it, but they're completely right about there being a problem - you can't look at the US and say they're right in the head over there. The rest of us have firearms since the 1600s and we didn't start shooting up schools the way they do. There's definitely a problem there.

Now me, I think the problem isn't the guns, it's the americans, but that's into the mechanics of it, not the "is there a problem or isn't there" bit. And taking pot shots at a bunch of kids who're protesting because they're actually being shot at? Yeah, no, count me right the **** out of that please.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I can't get behind that. They're getting shot at, they get the right to complain about it. End of, far as I'm concerned.

No one, as far as i can see, is objecting to their ability to protest. Do you see anyone on the conservative side wearing masks, rioting, and inciting violence against them or their right to protest? NO. Because it's their first amendment right to protest and no one is interested in taking that away from them.

They might not be right about the "how" part of fixing it, but they're completely right about there being a problem

Again those on the opposite side of the argument agree there is a problem, but protesting the NRA, gun control, and specifically focusing on one particular type of firearm is not a solution.

Their time and energy would be better spent identifying the problem and attacking that head on.

- you can't look at the US and say they're right in the head over there. The rest of us have firearms since the 1600s and we didn't start shooting up schools the way they do. There's definitely a problem there.

Now me, I think the problem isn't the guns, it's the americans, but that's into the mechanics of it

Exactly, as i said above:

Cass wrote:

The problem with America is not gun control, but their mindset. Have a problem with someone, shoot them. Annoyed by your boss, shoot them. Someone insults you, shoot them. Feeling bad, shoot someone.

Nothing will change until they address the cause of the violence..........

After the Parkland shooting the Sheriff, the school commissioner, the Governor, and a host of concerned faces stood outside the school and condemned (rightly) the act. In the following weeks we find out that a systematic failure of the school, the Sheriff's department, mental health services and the FBI allowed this tragic and mindless act to happen.

Weeks later, again, and we find that the Sheriff has a political history against guns, he instructs his deputies to do things counter to the oath they took, and still he is invited to town halls organised by the liberal media, namely CNN, with an audience that is loaded with people of the same mindset and the questions are prepared/loaded to attack only one aspect. Firearms.

Where is the outrage towards the Sheriff, the school, the mental health services, the FBI? Why are they and their premises not being protested/picketed?

In all the time from the shooting i've heard almost nothing about Cruz (the shooter) and/or the failings of the various departments. Instead its all about ARs and gun control. Thing is the gun controls were in place, but failures on behalf of the Sheriff and the FBI allowed Cruz to get firearms when he shouldn't.

So tell me how more gun control will solve this when the current laws are not properly enforced? Why are ARs being targeted when they account for a tiny percentage of total gun deaths per year? Why do those opposed to firearms not educate themselves instead of sounding ignorant by protesting things which are already banned?

And taking pot shots at a bunch of kids who're protesting because they're actually being shot at? Yeah, no, count me right the **** out of that please.

Name calling is petty, but they're fair game in terms of challenging them.

The majority of kids involved in that are trying to get over their trauma and move on. They protest, for whatever side they fall on, and they're more than free to do so however the two who are the front of the media's push are picked out for various reasons which will appeal to a larger audience. You have Emma Gonzalez an ethic bisexual. You cannot be seen to argue against her because to do so would mean you're automatically a racist, sexist, bigot and uncaring towards the trauma she suffered.

It shouldn't be about her or one child, but all of them.

Its like here at home. Gun control is an emotive subject (although no where near as big an issue as in the states) but look what happens when something happens regarding suicide. If we bring it up we're heartless and insensitive, yet whenever the situation is on "their" side it's fair game.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

No one, as far as i can see, is objecting to their ability to protest. Do you see anyone on the conservative side wearing masks, rioting, and inciting violence against them or their right to protest?

Well, actually, yes. They've been called everything from "crisis actors" to attention whores. I've been watching the US coverage of this and some of the bile coming off Fox over there is ****ing horrendous. And that's not even counting things like the counter-protestors in Albuquerque showing up armed to yell at the kids until the police had to step in and cordon them off.

The US is going completely nonlinear over this and it's ****ing ugly.

Again those on the opposite side of the argument agree there is a problem, but protesting the NRA, gun control, and specifically focusing on one particular type of firearm is not a solution.

Yup, I'd agree and I'd argue that with them all day long. But pointing out that there's a problem and it's not being solved? That's 100% legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly, as i said above:

And I'd agree with that.

It's the adhom stuff Grizzly's throwing about that I can't get behind.
They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on - but they're kids. They're not expected to. And getting shot at gives you a free pass for life to say there is a problem, even if you don't know how to fix it.

Where is the outrage towards the Sheriff, the school, the mental health services, the FBI?

I think there was a fair amount of that when it came out that they'd been bringing the shooter to their attention for years and when it turned out that the deputy involved on the day didn't enter the building.

So tell me how more gun control will solve this when the current laws are not properly enforced? Why are ARs being targeted when they account for a tiny percentage of total gun deaths per year? Why do those opposed to firearms not educate themselves instead of sounding ignorant by protesting things which are already banned?

Because they're kids and they're being shot at and that's not going to make them sit down in a library and go study the problem. It's going to make them ask "how the hell has this not been fixed in the last century of it happening and what the hell are you yahoos doing with our taxes to say it's this bad?"

Honestly, I think they have a pretty solid point there as well.

they're fair game in terms of challenging them.

No, they're not. There's no "fair game" in taking ad hom attacks on kids, there just isn't.

look what happens when something happens regarding suicide. If we bring it up we're heartless and insensitive, yet whenever the situation is on "their" side it's fair game.

Yup, because they've no problem in being assholes.
Me, I'd prefer to try not to be one.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

Well, actually, yes. They've been called everything from "crisis actors" to attention whores.

This is a product of a news media with an agenda that has lost all credibility. CNN (most prominent) has lied, cheated and made up facts/stories to suit their narrative and if these children think by using them they will get a genuine message out then they're sadly mistaken.

I've been watching the US coverage of this and some of the bile coming off Fox over there is ****ing horrendous.

And all the bile, bias, lies, "tactical" editing, and bastardisation of the truth by CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, Washington Post, USA Today, etc. is even more stomach churning.

And that's not even counting things like the counter-protestors in Albuquerque showing up armed to yell at the kids until the police had to step in and cordon them off.

Is this the march from Saturday? If so it was a couple of dozen, if that, against over 8,000 and they have as much right to counter protest as the other side do.

If not i've not heard of any other protest except the anti Trump protests in 2016 where the liberals wrecked the place because they were "offended".

I'd also point you to my comment above about perspective. You say people with guns shouting at kids. Because they have guns they're somehow worse? Did they shoot anyone? No, because they have cop on, and self control. Kinda makes their point for them.

The US is going completely nonlinear over this and it's ****ing ugly.

Yup, but ask yourself why now, why lately. 30, 40 years ago shooting was an activity in most schools as a sport, but now it's schools being shot up. What changed?

Over the last 5 years everything is now suddenly a hot button topic. Sexual abuse in Hollywood has being going on for decades and was ignored, accepted and even covered up. Now the same "victims" are coming out because it's trendy to do so and drowning out the voices of true victims. Yet their double standards are sickening when you see the same so called victims praising Roman Polanski, a convicted and on the run paedophile.

Same thing with Hillary Clinton. Talking about woman's rights and equality when she ignored and covered up sexual assault within her own campaign staff. Why has no one come out and against her for actual recorded attacks yet jump all over accusations of the same against conservatives? Bias, and an agenda.

Yup, I'd agree and I'd argue that with them all day long. But pointing out that there's a problem and it's not being solved? That's 100% legitimate as far as I'm concerned.

But how is protesting and attacking an item that is NOT the actual centre of the problem a solution? Some of those protesting it probably know this too, but why is no one actually tackling the issues that will help or at least start on the road to resolution?

They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on - but they're kids. They're not expected to.

That is one of the most ridiculous comments i've heard. "They don't have to know about the thing(s) they are protesting".

YES THEY FECKING DO.

You cannot use age as an excuse for not knowing what they are protesting then in the same mouthful expect anyone to take them seriously. You might as well be doing this if thats the case:

And getting shot at gives you a free pass for life to say there is a problem, even if you don't know how to fix it.

Yep, but not to go on TV and be a puppet for a larger agenda.

I think there was a fair amount of that when it came out that they'd been bringing the shooter to their attention for years and when it turned out that the deputy involved on the day didn't enter the building.

For a day or two and only for minutes at a time, then the focus quickly shifted back to "guns are bad, m'kay". Also it was the Sheriff's office, and rightly so, that got what little was shown. The Governor, the School Commision, those in mental health services all got very quiet, very quickly and not one media source has chosen to chase down why.

They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on ................

Because they're kids and they're being shot at and that's not going to make them sit down in a library and go study the problem.

I wouldn't expect them to become PhD's on the subject but for the love of God at least know that what you want banned is already banned. At least know that background checks exist, there are laws to prevent everything they want to prevent and checks in place to stop or at least highlight possible problems before they happen.

However when they fail is when the shtf. Look at the most recent shooting. A 17yr old with a Glock. You don't hear too much about it on TV, a bit on Social media, etc. because the school resource officer stopped him dead, literally, before he could do more harm. In Maryland it's illegal to own a pistol if you're under 21, there is a long cooling off period, limit on amount of guns you can buy and how often, etc. All those failed miserably.

The question that should have been asked was why the Father did not have it locked up.

As more and more politicians jump on this bandwagon it becomes more out of control and about something else (in some cases getting elected because you're seen to be on the "right" side of the argument). One Democrat seeking to win the next Governor election in New Mexico is releasing an 8 point plan to combat gun violence which includes background checks (already exist) and taking guns from people with mental health issues (which is also coverd by the constitution). So in other words she wants to make what is currently the law, into law.

She is not the only one:

• Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally surrounded by 8 ARMED men.
• The anti gun protests protected by armed police.
• A California Democratic senator with serious anti gun stances, arrested and jailed for gun smuggling
• Obama's "Fast and Furious" scheme.

The list goes on and on.

It's going to make them ask "how the hell has this not been fixed in the last century of it happening

There has been more shootings (school) in the last 15 years than in the previous 150. So i'll ask again what has changed. The guns or the attitudes of the "kids" you keep pointing to as needing to be listened to.

and what the hell are you yahoos doing with our taxes to say it's this bad?"

They don't pay taxes, and for that matter they don't vote.

As i asked above why is the second amendment so malleable or open to be repealed when the same talk of any other right been taken away is absolutely not on the cards. I reference the "Hogg" and the clear backpack and student ID cards as being infringements on his 1st amendment right (his exact words).

Honestly, I think they have a pretty solid point there as well.

No for the reasons above.

No, they're not. There's no "fair game" in taking ad hom attacks on kids, there just isn't.

Yes there is, however distasteful you think it is. They are the face and voice of an agenda that while they might have similar views, is at the core of other groups agenda.

They cannot, and should never be allowed to, think they can have their say without rebuttal or dissent simply because you or anyone else thinks its off limits. That is not a discussion or debate, that is preaching/dictating.

Yup, because they've no problem in being assholes.
Me, I'd prefer to try not to be one.

Then you are surrendering reasoned debate and mechanism to possibly achieve change because of an emotive reaction and not a common sense one.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

Is this the march from Saturday? If so it was a couple of dozen, if that, against over 8,000 and they have as much right to counter protest as the other side do.

They do; but showing up with firearms openly carried? Against a protest led by kids?
They're either such incredible asshats that they shouldn't be let near a butter knife for fear they'd use it on the neighbour's dog, or they're so incredibly stupid that you know they're going to show up using a pistol as an earplug on the range on youtube sometime soon.

I mean, this isn't nuanced we're talking about; this is showing up at a march that is predominantly kids, while openly carrying firearms.

If anyone thinks that's going to be thought remotely acceptable in any civilised society, they need to go soak their head for a while.

You say people with guns shouting at kids. Because they have guns they're somehow worse?

Cass, someone shows up to yell at kids and brings a gun with them which they're happily displaying and yes, they're worse. Flat out, no contest, completely lunatic fringe worse.
You Just Don't Do That.

Yup, but ask yourself why now, why lately. 30, 40 years ago shooting was an activity in most schools as a sport, but now it's schools being shot up. What changed?

I don't know and that's the scary part. They've had school shootings in the US since the last century; they never figured out why and then suddenly it starts to show up across the western world from the 60s onwards. It's almost like watching the spread of a disease and nobody's looking at why it's happening.

That is one of the most ridiculous comments i've heard. "They don't have to know about the thing(s) they are protesting".

Who'd you hear it from?
What I said was they have a right to protest that something's broken and needs fixing, and that how it got fixed was a seperate thing and if they don't know that, well, (a) they're kids, they're not supposed to be experts, and (b) the experts don't know either. And they've had this problem for over a century and if those kids are pissed because they're still getting shot in schools and if I was one of them, I'd want a politician's head on a stake for that level of incompetence as well.

It's when they want specific legislation that the requirement for expertise comes in. I don't see placards saying "amend article 13.4.2.3(a) to read ...". I see placards saying the equivalent of "stop shooting at us and sort this **** out".

The Governor, the School Commision, those in mental health services all got very quiet, very quickly and not one media source has chosen to chase down why.

Add me in to the list of people who'd like to know why.

The question that should have been asked was why the Father did not have it locked up

And since he's legally liable (it being a specific offence in several states including Maryland), it'll get asked in court (hopefully before he lands in jail head first).

As more and more politicians jump on this bandwagon it becomes more out of control and about something else (in some cases getting elected because you're seen to be on the "right" side of the argument).

They'll certainly try, it's what they do. Hell, ours are as bad, just look at the Healy-Raes.
That doesn't mean that if a bunch of kids whose school got shot up want to grab an incumbent by the neck and ask why, after over a century of this kind of thing, they haven't fixed it yet and why are they paying for their pensions anyway, well, it's a question I've wanted to ask of our lot a few times myself about things.
Turning round and saying they faked the school shooting, or showing up at the protest carrying guns, or doing any of the truly ****ty ****ty things people have been doing in the US to them? No, that's just wrong.

Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally surrounded by 8 ARMED men.

I never got the point to that specific complaint, whether it was about democrats, republicans or actresses, to be honest.

I mean, you make that jibe, the return's always going to be to point out that you can't take firearms into the NRA AGM.

[*]Obama's "Fast and Furious" scheme.

Yup, ****ty stupid program...
...as was Bush's "Wide Receiver" scheme which invented the whole "ship guns to mexico" thing in 2006.

There has been more shootings (school) in the last 15 years than in the previous 150. So i'll ask again what has changed.

Again, we literally don't know. We desperately need to and nobody's looking at it, they're all too busy having a pissing match. And if that **** starts showing up over here...

They don't pay taxes, and for that matter they don't vote.

So what? Didn't stop them getting shot.

As i asked above why is the second amendment so malleable or open to be repealed

Nobody's ever going to repeal it.
Mainly because it's the foundation of all their firearms control legislation and without it, you can buy machine guns in walmart in the morning.
Also, SCOTUS has been pretty clear on this - you could bring in licensing or registration or any one of a dozen different changes on the federal level and they (a) would be completely compatible with the second amendment and (b) wouldn't be novel because states have had them since the founding of the US at one time or another, in one form or another.

They cannot, and should never be allowed to, think they can have their say without rebuttal or dissent simply because you or anyone else thinks its off limits.

Rebuttal and dissent are one thing.
Engaging in nothing but ad hominem attacks on them is another.
And showing up carrying firearms openly at a protest is so far away from the concepts of dissent and rebuttal that it's ludicrous.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

They do; but showing up with firearms openly carried? Against a protest led by kids?

Back to my point about perceptions. If it were a rally, as has been done before, against a group of adults there would be no thought of inappropriateness, but against kids!!!!!!!! Won't someone think of the children.

If anyone thinks that's going to be thought remotely acceptable in any civilised society, they need to go soak their head for a while.

Says you.

It's their second amendment right to do so and it's no less valid than any other right because it involves guns. Also the kids are either there are their own behest or as is the case in so many rallies at the direction of adults with ulterior motives.

You cannot keep playing the kid card as defense. They either want to be treated as adults ( in which case they need to be told the world is not a candy coated sweet) or they don't (in which case go home to your safe space where you'll get a trophy for participating).

Cass, someone shows up to yell at kids and brings a gun with them which they're happily displaying and yes, they're worse. Flat out, no contest, completely lunatic fringe worse.
You Just Don't Do That.

Sparks, yes you can as is their right and protection under the second amendment.

Because you and other liberals don't think it's right or are offended by it does not make it illegal or wrong. As i keep saying, the kids are being used a human shields against any form of attack because it's known that any attack on kids (verbally of course) is seen as a no go.

Sorry not buying it.

I don't know and that's the scary part. They've had school shootings in the US since the last century; they never figured out why and then suddenly it starts to show up across the western world from the 60s onwards. It's almost like watching the spread of a disease and nobody's looking at why it's happening.

The guns have always been there, yet its only in the last 15 to 20 years that it's becoming a more and more frequent thing. The guns and how they operate have not changed so does anyone else think it's the people wielding them and if so why not address that issue?

Who'd you hear it from?

You:

Sparks wrote:

They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on - but they're kids. They're not expected to.

What I said was

What you said was what i've quoted above. Just scroll down a bit, its right there.

they have a right to protest that something's broken and needs fixing

No ones is arguing that, but they're not protesting the problem, they're protesting what they incorrrectly think to be the problem and because of political and social pressure they think they're right.

, and that how it got fixed was a seperate thing and if they don't know that, well, (a) they're kids, they're not supposed to be experts, and (b) the experts don't know either.

Now its because they're not experts? Above it was just because they're kids and didn't have to know. The fact that they don't know through ignorance or lack of trying is a sign that something is wrong. They look for the easy path which is guns.

I've said before if they ban all the guns in the morning without addressing the underlying cause of what drives kids to want to murder other kids then nothing will change other than the method those murders are done by.

By the by the kids protesting against guns are ignoring the fact that most school shooters are kids themselves. Perhaps this is a starting point to examining the real issues behind these killings.

It's when they want specific legislation that the requirement for expertise comes in. I don't see placards saying "amend article 13.4.2.3(a) to read ...". I see placards saying the equivalent of "stop shooting at us and sort this **** out".

So go back to the public faces of this movement you said were not fair game. They don't say "sort this out" they say ban guns, the NRA has blood on its hands, etc. No middle ground, no seeking reform. just get rid of the 2nd amendment and we'll all lvie with unicorns and rainbows.

They'll certainly try, it's what they do. Hell, ours are as bad, just look at the Healy-Raes.

We cannot compare us to them. We have guns as a privilege, we don't have the 1st amendment either, and no TD would get elected in this country on the "power" of any gun lobby group. As for the Healy-Raes, another story for another day.

That doesn't mean that if a bunch of kids whose school got shot up want to grab an incumbent by the neck and ask why, after over a century of this kind of thing, they haven't fixed it yet and why are they paying for their pensions anyway, well, it's a question I've wanted to ask of our lot a few times myself about things.

Can you not see the problem with this?

The "kids" are protesting the NRA, blaming Trump, and attacking pro-2nd/gun groups. Not the politicians, not the legislators of each state, not the representatives of their county.

Then you'll have Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Warren, et al, coming out and giving rousing speeches and then going back to Washington and either not bothering to do anything or introducing such a poorly worded bill that it'll get shot down immediately.

I've posted on this very thread examples of congressmen/women giving laughably unintelligible press conferences and interviews with one admitting she didn't even understand the contents of her own bill on gun reform.

You set term limits on Senators and Congressmen and you'll see a marked improvement in performance as they have a short period of time to get stuff done rather than trying to fill a seat for 40 years.

My point being the "kids" are aiming their anger at the wrong people so is it any surprise they get "f**k you" in response. You ask a pro-gun person to give up their guns.

Turning round and saying they faked the school shooting, or showing up at the protest carrying guns, or doing any of the truly ****ty ****ty things people have been doing in the US to them? No, that's just wrong.

Don't lump a tin foil hat, paint chip eating, window licking conspiracy with a valid counter protest. Its disingenuous.

I never got the point to that specific complaint, whether it was about democrats, republicans or actresses, to be honest.

Its the same complaint about Hollywood going to these anti gun rallies yet making millions/billions by glorifying gun violence. If they truly oppose guns so much then stop make making movies that romanticize it and then maybe i'll listen.

I mean, you make that jibe, the return's always going to be to point out that you can't take firearms into the NRA AGM.

Yeeeaaaahhhh.................... perhaps you wanna fact check that.

Yup, ****ty stupid program...
...as was Bush's "Wide Receiver" scheme which invented the whole "ship guns to mexico" thing in 2006.

I'm not trying to do a "they're worse than them", but Obama was seriously anti gun, made it known, yet his administration created this cluster f...... Bush was not anti gun (which doesn't excuse it, just saying).

Again, we literally don't know. We desperately need to and nobody's looking at it, they're all too busy having a pissing match.

And there is your problem. Who can shout the loudest and invoke the greatest sympathy, regardless of whether it's accomplishing anything or not.

And if that **** starts showing up over here...

It won't and for the reason its happening in America. Irish people are too subservient for anything close to this to happen here. We don't have the same thoughts or freedom of thought they have in America. We have a problem with someone it's either don't speak to them ever again, spread rumors about them, or report them to the Gardaí/Welfare. Or some combination of the three.

So what? Didn't stop them getting shot.

You brought it up as a point, hence my remark:

Sparks wrote:

and what the hell are you yahoos doing with our taxes to say it's this bad?"

Nobody's ever going to repeal it.

I know, that is my point. It's a loosing battle and not one people against these school shootings and violence should be fighting. Their time, money and energy would be better spent elsewhere where it will make a difference, but some force or a level of ignorance is driving this train in the wrong path and nobody is questioning why.

Engaging in nothing but ad hominem attacks on them is another.

People on the pro gun side see one of two things.

1. Kids that don't know the level at which they are playing
2. Kids that are being manipulated by the media and other interest groups

When they hear these young adults (they're not kids ffs) attacking their rights and freedoms from a position of ignorance and mi-information they will retaliate.

I don't see how name calling gets anything done. It weakens your argument and makes people ignore the rest of what you have to say. However i don't believe someone is exempt from attack and to some this is a personal attack on their liberties and that will get a personal response. Also the young adults have made serious and possibly defamatory remarks about President Trump, Dana Loesch, and others on the pro gun side. So not innocent kiddies as some believe they are.

And showing up carrying firearms openly at a protest is so far away from the concepts of dissent and rebuttal that it's ludicrous.

The dissent and rebuttal remark was in response to your comment on the two faces of this anti gun campaign as per the quoted piece and my response, and not the kids at the march in Albuquerque which i've addressed at the start of this post.

Grizzly 45

Ah bless the poor little cherubs and seraphs.I can almost hear Mrs Lovejoy's plaintive cry "won't someone PLEASE THINK of the children." here in some arguments. Playing the "its for the children or its for the good of the children" is the tactical nuke these days in arguments...Everything from gun control to the price of North Sea oil.Heres a way to defeat it.
I don't CARE about "the children" and neither does the person who is using this argument point.It's a cliche and an utterly lazy way of saying shut up.

Since when does the adult world bow down to the rantings of children?Especially a foul-mouthed brat like master Hogg?
Even at 17 if I had spoken to adults like that I'd have caught a backhander from either of my parents that I'd have woken up a week later.A generation that engages in eating laundry detergent or smoking fly spray of Facebook challenges? We are supposed to engage in a serious debate on constitutional law and firearms rights with a mindset like that??

You put yourself in the media spotlight and public eye, well then expect no mercy,its the nature of the beast, claiming execptions because of your age or gender doesn't work.Did we hear any outrage when the media attacked Brandon Trump, describing him as "the next future school shooter" when his ol man was sworn in as president?

As for ad hominem attacks, well when the anti-gun loons want to quit attacking us and try being somewhat civilised and discussing facts and solutions, and not bare emotionalism well then they can expect the same courtesy both online and in real life...Sometimes,you have to just get down into the ****e do deal with the ****e.

Grizzly 45

Nobody's ever going to repeal it.
Mainly because it's the foundation of all their firearms control legislation and without it, you can buy machine guns in walmart in the morning.
Also, SCOTUS has been pretty clear on this - you could bring in licensing or registration or any one of a dozen different changes on the federal level and they (a) would be completely compatible with the second amendment and (b) wouldn't be novel because states have had them since the founding of the US at one time or another, in one form or another.

You do not repeal constitutional amendments, you amend them with others.IE abolishment of slavery,prohibition of alcohol, and its repeal, so it could be well possible to amend the 2nd by a further amendment prohibiting the RTKBA.That's if you can get 35 states, both houses and the president to sign off on it.And the population votes for it.

SCOTUS judgements..Another massive can of worms,as they cant even decide whether the constitution is a living document or a fixed document.An opinion which changes regularly with who is elected to the supreme court by which party.

yubabill1

Been following this from a distance. I see two sides:

1. The spate of shootings in the USA is absolutely crazy and revolting.

It would be good if the existing laws and procedures around gun ownership there were properly enforced, as there seems to be a cultural problem around entitlement and revenge, which you don't see in the likes of Canada which has around the same rate of gun ownership.

2. It's obvious the high school protestors are being coached by Left-Wingers.

If you read Gene Sharp's articles about 198 methods of nonviolent protest, you will see that he has designed a template which is being used to some effect worldwide, including in Ireland

https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

Who is Gene Sharp? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12522848

Grizzly 45

Does Canada stuff lithium anti depressants into every kid with a problem in school and diagnose them with some trendy mental illiness like ADHD?Be interesting to see that sort of a correlation as well between US and Canadian mental health,and how do Canadian schools handle school bullying?

BTW, watched an interesting film last night somewhat on this topic."Young Jeffrey Dahmer" Based on a book by one of his friends in high school in the late 70s early 80s.While not a mass school shooter, Dahmer became a mass murdering homosexual, cannibal killer.What is interesting to see is how little has changed in US high schools since then with the bullying of the outcasts and weird kids and now.Dahmer could just have easily been a school shooter, as a cannibal mass murderer.
My take is, it is a failure in US society and a collective failure to look at itself and blame everything else except itself for producing these killers.The means are not the issue,its the motive and method and the environment.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45

ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-for-our-lives-39-days-how-parkland-students-turned-grief-into-action

[I]DAVID HOGG: On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting.
[/I]
Hogg’s statement can be seen just past the 4:30 mark of the video clip below.

Let THAT sink in for awhile!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://breaking.americanewscentral.com/2018/03/26/lie-now-david-hogg-says-wasnt-even-parkland-school-shooting-began-2/

BattleCorp

Maybe I'm still sleepy but what does that show us Grizz?

Grizzly 45

That Master Hogg's story has more holes in it than my old socks?
Claims to be hiding in a closet during the shooting making anti-gun videos.Now says in this soon to be released documentary,he was at home and cycled 3 miles to get the blood&gore of his classmates...And of course, he is let somehow, into an active shooting scene and locked down crime scene that has about a one-mile exclusion zone.... So which is it??

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Maybe I'm still sleepy but what does that show us Grizz?

Nothing as it's a partial bit taken out of context. Don't get me wrong i like a good conspiracy theory but the truth is more important.

He was at the school and present during the shooting, went home, but later returned to the school and its this the quote is referencing. His return to the school.

I don't like him as he is an entitled, foul mouthed, ignorant little sh*t that thinks his 17 years of middle/upper class life makes him an authority. He was the victim of an unspeakable tragedy and has every right to be heard and speak his mind, but his actions, his words, and his carry on show his ineptitude and the biased media are pushing this as it fits their agenda/narrative on guns.

What makes me dislike Hoggs. Well it's not that he is anti gun, it's his actions and ignorance. His first reaction upon returning to the school (as well as his reason for going) was to get footage, be interviewed and in his own words:

I knew I wanted to talk on the news and make sure there was advocacy, especially with so many people from the [National Rifle Association] and different gun-toting Americans who watch Fox News.

His bias and agenda is clear and from that day he has come out with other ignorant, defamatory, and uneducated statements such as:

It just makes me think what sick f***ers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly get reelected

When your old-a** parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage’, and you’re just like, ‘Give me the f***ing phone and let me handle it.' And you get it done in one second. Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government,'

'Our parents don’t know how to use a f***ing democracy, so we have to

I got a call from the White House, they rang me, but i just hung on them

Honestly, it’s alright that people are buying more guns. I just care that they are being safe individuals. And they can practice their Second Amendment rights all they want. I don’t give a f*** about that. I just want to make sure that a crazy a** individual doesn’t get an AR-15 or any weapon at all

So the people that can actually vote, pay their taxes, and have fought to make sure he has the freedom to come out with his drivel have f**ked it up and he and his impressive 17 years can solve it so he will.

He is an ignorant, entitled little so and so that is good on camera but falls to pieces when his view points are questioned as per his twitter rants and foul mouthed tirades. He invokes sympathy because of his situation and in none of the interviews he has done has anyone actually really challenged him because once again no one wants to be seen to challenge a kid. Well he is not a kid, he is a young adult (although he doesn't act like it) and if he wants to take part on this level then he should be treated the same as any other adult.

Then his side kick Cameron Kasky has some good ones of his own, and is even more ignorant than Hoggs:

We have stared down the barrel of an AR15, how dare you say we don't know what we're talking about [referencing Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre], We're the experts.

They treat it as though we're attacking a right you're born with [referencing the 2nd amendment]

If that kid [Cruz] had just seen medical professional for 5 minutes they wouldn't have said you need a gun they'd have said you need a counsellor and that was allowed to happen

So according to Cameron being shot at makes you an expert, in much the same way being hit by a car makes you a mechanic. :rolleyes: He doesn't understand the constitution of his own country, the second amendment is a God given right under the constitution, and he completely ignores or doesn't know that Cruz was seen by numerous medical professionals and reported dozens of time and i'm sure none of them told him he needed a gun all the while ignoring [Cameron] the fact that failings of the Sheriff's Dept., the FBI, the school, etc lead to this tragedy and while they are failings none of them "allowed" this to happen.

Hoggs was defending the inaction of the deputies at the school that day saying no police officer wants to confront a person with a gun, even though it's their job and they're trained to do it, and said the teachers should not have that responsibility either. Then who does? In a perfect world it shouldn't be necessary, but the removal of legally held firearms, or more precisely just ARs, will not make this go away and until such a time as the root cause of these shootings are addressed protection is needed and that means people having the ability to defend themselves or others.

He [Hoggs] attacks the NRA and specifically Dana Loesch with unrelenting determination saying she has congress in her pocket and it's her fault happened while ignoring the inaction of the police, FBI, etc as above. He says she doesn't care about dead children, well that is a despicable and frankly horrendous lie. No one wants to see this happen.

The media are allowing this to happen and allowing these kids, and in this case they are kids, to say the most outlandish statements/comments without the media having to defend the comments as they would have to had one of their anchors or reporters said it for the very reason that was given above (which is complete crap) that as kids they are above reproach and anyone who challenges them is a gun nut, baby killer, etc, etc.

Grizzly 45

Nothing as it's a partial bit taken out of context. Don't get me wrong i like a good conspiracy theory but the truth is more important.

He was at the school and present during the shooting, went home, but later returned to the school and its this the quote is referencing. His return to the school.

This is the whole point...
He couldn't have returned to the school or anywhere near it,or been anywhere near it for at least a mile radius of the building, as the whole area was in lockdown with at least five various different LE agencies, local, County, Sheriffs dept, and Federal agencies.Not including fire depts, paramedics, bomb disposal, and all the rest that arrives at a crime scene of this magnitude. He is not accredited press and media, and even they are not allowed anywhere near a federal crime scene in a situation like this. So saying he had a "student high school ID and was waved thru" is utterly laughable. To process 450 odd pupils, search everyone for concealed weapons,as there might be more than one shooter, do a quick debrief of personal experience of the incident by at least three different LE agencies along with treating many injured or traumatised individuals, keeping them in a holding area and releasing only to legal parents or guardians when they show up,run the gauntlet of real media,trauma councillers and just plain morbid,takes hours! So a 17-year-old kid who has just goe thru all that,gets on his bike rides off back to the school,and starts wandering around a crime scene interviewing people and especially his classmates .....Sorry...Nope!Dont buy that at all.

Grizzly 45

As for media bias..
Ask why NONE of the pro-gun kids, have had zero airtime from the MSM.Ask why Colton Haab was told to "stick to the script" of a CNN anti-gun question at a CNN Townhall meeting.Haab refused to do so and withdrew from the Townhall meeting rather than compromise his beliefs.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As for media bias..
Ask why NONE of the pro-gun kids, have had zero airtime from the MSM.

Doesn't fit the narrative. Its a bit like the BBC not reporting the carry on in Telford. It doesn't fit their view of the world, they bury their heads in the sand.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is the whole point...
He couldn't have returned to the school or anywhere near it..................

I'm not saying everything he said is true, but some alternative sources for news are saying he was never there.

Listen to everything, filter out the bullsh*t, verify, then make a decision on the 10% that is left.

Rosahane

Here in North Kildare I'm aware of a number of instances where the Garda have refused additional firearms licences unless the holder give up an existing one. For instance one person had to give up his shotgun to get a rifle. In another instance a person was brought in for a meeting and told that he would have to give up one of his shotgun licences when renewal comes around - he has two shotguns and a rifle. In this case his first renewal isn't until July.

Is this happening elsewhere?

Gravelly

Rosahane wrote: »

Here in North Kildare I'm aware of a number of instances where the Garda have refused additional firearms licences unless the holder give up an existing one. For instance one person had to give up his shotgun to get a rifle. In another instance a person was brought in for a meeting and told that he would have to give up one of his shotgun licences when renewal comes around - he has two shotguns and a rifle. In this case his first renewal isn't until July.

Is this happening elsewhere?

Haven't heard of that happening here, and it hasn't been suggested to me (I've another new application awaiting a decision at the moment). I presume that's someone going on a solo run, as it isn't a feature of the firearms act? All districts seem to have their quirks - our district has an effective blanket ban on moderators.

Nekarsulm

Yes, here in south Cavan the local Sergeant always asks if you will get rid of one gun before getting another. Then acts disappointed when you say "No".

Wife is buying a gun, and it was the same. Would I get rid of one of mine before she applies for hers?
When I said no, he arrived out one evening with another Guard in tow and asked to inspect my safe. Give it a good pulling to see it was well bolted down etc, and that each gun was present and correct.

Then advised that he would not be passing on her application to the Super until a variety of alarm requirements were complied with, inspected by the CPO and approved.

At no stage has he spoken to her.

gunny123

Gravelly wrote: »

All districts seem to have their quirks - our district has an effective blanket ban on moderators.

Blanket bans are not on. Each application should be granted or refused on its own merits. For a super to have a blanket ban he is ignoring the firearms act.

Gravelly

gunny123 wrote: »

Blanket bans are not on. Each application should be granted or refused on its own merits. For a super to have a blanket ban he is ignoring the firearms act.

I know, but I presume he'll keep on with a blanket ban until someone challenges it in court. That won't be me.

Cass

There have been a good few threads on this over the years on the forum. Lads being made surrender one firearm to get another.

Now one or two were borderline in that a chap might have a 243, 308 and wanted a 6.5 but only shoots deer. However the majority were lads looking for a hmr or 22lr when they had a 223 and being refused unless they surrendered one of the other rifles, and others were of a similar vein.

Blanket bans are illegal and this was already sorted in court so no need to go again, but if you had to go to court it would be the district court and you'd win it easily enough if there was actually a blanket ban policy being used.

Just thread carefully as the "Good Reason" clause of all applications is a vague statement and open to too many interpretations.