The incredible new movement by the shooting survivors.

They are the brainwashed products of the public education monopoly just like Cruz

Just two sides of the same confusing and confused coin

 

These kids would make responsible gun owners the next victims

 

We might agree that we do need to have much more stringent individual background checks. I advocate even the drastic steps of forbidding firearm ownership among those who are on record as taking certain classes of prescription drugs, those who are under psychiatric care, and, those with criminal records involving violence -- felonies and misdemeanors! And by "forbidding" I mean that if those kinds of people presently own weapons that they must submit to confiscation of those weapons. And, they should be forbidden from buying any other firearms, either! Now, what kind of talk is that from me, an NRA member...?!

BUT, Te, leave the rest of us alone! What the vast majority of us want is the ability to DEFEND ourselves against monsters like Nikolas Cruz and all violent criminals. Why would you be against that? Singing "Kumbaya" to a violent, psychopathic murderer isn't going to save your life when they decide you are going to be their next victim....

 

Brainwashed with the blood of their friends. Some brainwashing.

 

.............

 

That was just the catalist for the anti gun brainwashing they have been getting for 12 years

 

All gun owners are responsible, right up to the moment they start shooting people from their Vegas hotel rooms or at their local schools.

 

That's not registration.

That's taking a census of armaments to make sure the militia is well equipped.

You alt-lefties are hilarious.

 

Scary thought isnt it? This is the same generation thats eating laundry detergent.

 

so it is your opinion that the inner city gang Bangerz are more energized and resourceful than those who intend to murder large groups of people?

 

...gun confiscation.

 

99.999% of gun owners never do anything like that

People that evil will find other ways to kill if they dont have a gun

Cars and small aircraft can be just as deadly

 

Thats exactly what I said. 'gun rights replaced by gun priveledges'. In the UK 'self defense' is not a valid reason to apply for a liscence. You have to be a member of a special club, be employed or contracted by the govt, or otherwise have special contacts within the bureaucracy to 'prove a need.'

Adopting this system in the US would require the anullment of the Second Amendment of our Constitution/Bill of Rights. It runs contrary to one of the fundamental principles our society was founded upon- the right to self defense.

We can, of course, have that discussion- to ammend the constitution. But thats not the current context of the debate here in the US. What the left is proposing is the adoption of 'UK and/or Australian style gun control' WITHOUT anulling the fundamental right to bear arms as laid out in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. That is not possible. Its a contradiction. They either don't know what it is they're proposing, or they're proposing it dishonestly. In either case, the contradiction shuts down the entire debate.

 

Should we mention that the anti war movement of the late 60s and early 70s was heavily funded and influenced by the Soviets?

 

Do you also oppose regulations aimed at saving lives when cars or aircraft are involved?

 

Still got the right to self defence in the UK just no need to defend against criminals wielding guns. Appropriate measures for appropriate threats.

 

Thats not really true. All he is proposing is adding more incentive for states to accurately report to NICS.

What he should be doing is making it mandatory or cutting off support to those states or juristictions.

 

A Muslim terrorist killed 84 people and injured hundreds more by running them down with a box truck in Nice, France.

What new laws were implemented to stop future box truck killings?

 

You still have criminals with guns. Claiming 'no need to defend against criminals with guns' is a false statement on its face.

You have a 'less frequent' need, but it still exists.

 

I'm against you wanting to infringe on my rights.

 

No one has a 2nd Amendment right to drive or fly

I think we should remove the crazy people from society after their day in court

because just taking away their guns does not prevent them from being a danger to others

 

MUCH less frequent....which should be the point

 

Those are privileges, not rights.

 

The problem is MUCH more complex than drugs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about it in 1965 and now the Left is unwilling to even address it, much less solve it. All it wants people to focus on are the symptoms of the underlying problem - gun violence, the drug trade, etc. - not the underlying problem itself. And what was the problem that Senator Moynihan warned his compatriots about when they were enacting their grand social engineering schemes of the 1960s?

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.

Not only are Dems unwilling to address this, they are unwilling to let anyone address it. If Moynihan had issued his grim warning today the politically correct would slander him as a "racist", "misogynist", etc., but since he was a Democrat who was raised by his mother in a single family home he has been spared the Left's personal attacks and ignored instead.

 

This discussion is not about inner city gangs: focus on the topic. Are you purposely trying to derail the topic or hijack the thread?