|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||19d 5h 43m 40s|
Parkland survivor David Hogg calls on advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham's Fox News show after she accused him of 'whining' about his college rejections.
Hogg tweeted at Ingraham directly following the hit, writing: 'Soooo what are your biggest advertisers...Asking for a friend. #BoycottIngramAdverts'.
He then tweeted a list of advertisers which included AT&T, Nutrish, Allstate, Esurance, Bayer, Liberty Mutual, Arby's, TripAdvisor, Nestle, and Hulu.
Hogg instructed his nearly 600,000 followers to pick a number between 1 and 12 and contact the company next to the number
icle-5556919/David-Hogg-asks-Twitte r-followers-boycott-Laura-Ingraham. html
>being this willfully blind
This kid puts himself in the media forefront on a national, political level. He's drawing lines in teh sand and threatening people's welfare. He's no longer a "high school student," or is that concept too difficult to grasp?
I think what you mean is a legal age adult who placed himself in the public eye, who has been critical of the the second amendment is angered when a talking head mocks him. He then in a mature way tells his followers to attack the talking head, because his feelings were hurt.
>I suppose you mean the gun owners?
>He's a senior, he graduates in May.
He's a 19 year old still in HS, missing way too much school. IF he manages to graduate, colleges still won't touch him.
He'll realize his 15 minutes is up, will maybe go to community college and will work fast food for a few years before OD'ing on some sort of opioid after an extended tirade on social media about being forgotten.
Trying to publicly humiliate someone by listing the colleges they weren't accepted to because you don't like their politics is pretty scummy to begin with. If I were an advertiser, I'd prefer if my ads were showing up on that sort of content; that's not something I'd wanna be associated with.
I know weird what could "Parkland survivor" mean even? I bet he was hiding in a bathroom stall during the shooting!"
Say what you want, it worked.
Trip Advisor, Wayfair and Nutrish have already dropped sponsorship of Ingraham.
Ingraham has tweeted out an apology and invited him onto her show. I guess her handlers at Faux let her know that personal attacks against a school shooting victim is over the line.
>what he's asking for
What's he asking for? Proponents of the March are all over the place and have wildly conflicting goals/ideas.
Forewarning: you can't hold up people (especially celebrities) calling for a repeal of the 2A and violent confiscation of firearms, as voices of reason, and then claim "we're not coming for your guns". Does not follow in the slightest.
I think it's different enough to be interesting that conservatives tend to be the ones investing their all into these ideological battles and targeting the media. Republican lawmakers in Georgia state govt just unanimously removed tax break on jet fuel specifically because Delta ended its NRA member benefit. And that was just treated as par for the course. In contrast, Democrats, in particular democratic lawmakers (to be fair, many of which are conservative), always come off as incredibly timid and limp-wristed when it comes to calling out the opposition, to the point where the folks who agree with them are turned off from voting.
So the fact that high school kids can garner and sustain all this media attention surrounding an issue and then meet the fox news machine on a level playing field sort of comes as a bolt from the blue to a lot of democrats that it's even possible to do anything other than surrender and say the country is too far right for their ideas after meeting enough resistance.
>Trying to publicly humiliate someone by listing the colleges they weren't accepted to because you don't like their politics is pretty scummy to begin with
It's performance art- like holding up a severed head of the president or telling white people they should be genocided.
>So the fact that high school kids can be astroturfed by large political organizations backed by oligarchs like Michael Bloomberg, can garner and sustain all this media attention surrounding an issue and then meet the fox news machine on a level playing field sort of comes as business as usualto a lot of democrats and republicans
>I think it's different enough to be interesting that conservatives tend to be the ones investing their all into these ideological battles and targeting the media.
I mean, the media is at the very least center-left, so the vast majority of liberals have no reason to attack the media. And the left has never shied away from the culture wars, it's going on all the time: the President, and Republicans, are racist and sexist and morally bankrupt pedophile enablers. This Roger Hogg business is going to quietly fade into the background like all the other movements that people cared about and then didn't.
>universal background checks
We already have background checks. The system they want as described is backdoor registration. Registration serves no other purpose other than to aid in confiscation.
Moreover, the fight to criminalize the mentally ill and strip their rights is a very bad road to go down.
> a minimum age of 21
Arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and unnecessary. "You can vote and join the military to shoot brown people who pose no threat to your daily life with an actual machine gun, but if you want a semi-automatic version of a rifle you trained with for years you can't because some kids cried on TV. Sorry. Be sure to re-enlist though!"
>banning of bumps stocks and other automatic conversion devices
Bump stocks aren't "automatic conversion devices", they allow for faster semi-auto firing of a semi-automatic weapon. You can achieve the same result by looping your finger through your belt loop. Should we ban belt loops next?
We don't have UNIVERSAL background checks. The gun show loophole is still a thing.
Minimum age is not capricious, it's the age of voting. You can join the military because you receive training and guidance on responsible use of lethal weapons. You don't simply.sign up and get issued an m16.
And I believe the belt loop trick, as well as the rubber band trick and other aftermarket conversions are already illegal. Bump stocks are designed to get around this by being integral to the guns use - they make the weapon impossible to fire if removed. This circumvents current regulation and they were first designed afterwards. They're literally the firearms version of rules lawyering.
You own a bump stock? whatever the fuck for? It wears down your trigger well, makes the grouping like a hundred times wider than it needs to be, and chews through ammo like you're trying to write your name on the target.
All it's good for is making noise. If you're not trying to do anything illegal with it, anyway.
>Moreover, the fight to criminalize the mentally ill and strip their rights is a very
bad road to go down.
There are certain things mentally ill people shouldn't be able to do, like own certain classes of weapons or, say, fly passenger planes (remember Germanwings 9525?), and the fact that background checks only check for criminal history and court-ordered institutionalization is a problem with the background check, not a call for the criminalization of the mentally ill.
>You can vote and join the military to shoot brown people who pose no threat to your daily life with an actual machine gun, but if you want a semi-automatic version of a rifle you trained with for years you can't because some kids cried on TV. Sorry. Be sure to re-enlist though!
If civilians had to go through a screening process equivalent to, say, enlistment and the entirety of basic, even the fiercest "background check" advocates would be satisfied.
>If civilians had to go through a screening process equivalent to, say, enlistment and the entirety of basic, even the fiercest "background check" advocates would be satisfied.
This. The most responsible gun owners I know are vets. They get it hammered into them from day one. That rifle is not a toy. It is a weapon. You treat it like one or you get your face chewed off by the drill instructor at a minimum.
Times article posted here:
Notes he and the rest of his class were able to hear the first gunshots at 2:30.
Having been to a range with folks letting off AR15 rounds (no suppressor) that would be within the same building or a building less than 50 yards away. Gunshots indoors carry less than you'd think.
>There are certain things mentally ill people shouldn't be able to do
And you're qualified to determine that because...
>and the fact that background checks only check for criminal history and court-ordered institutionalization is a problem with the background check, not a call for the criminalization of the mentally ill
How is stripping people of their rights- aka, turning them into criminals should they continue to try and practice them, not criminalizing them?
Moreover, again, what should qualify and who gets to decide? The Obama administration tried arguing that if someone who was elderly needed help with their finances or paperwork (like for taxes which can no longer be done in paper) that they weren't fit to own firearms.
>If civilians had to go through a screening process equivalent to, say, enlistment and the entirety of basic, even the fiercest "background check" advocates would be satisfied.
This does absolutely nothing in favor of said advocates, and further confirms that, just like firearms, said advocates know absolutely nothing about the US military's screening processes.
As a proportion of total population, there are 50-100 times more gang members in the US military then in the general US population. This number has been going up.
Even the FBI stated, way back in 2007 (last link) that the screening process was ineffective.
>You've been tricked.
"He was in a different building" =/= "he wasn't on campus"
Address an argument your opponent didn't make
Debunk the argument you just made up and ignore opponents actual argument
Claim said debunking applies to the argument your opponent was making
Pat yourself on the back
It's almost like... there's a term for this, like a specific type of fallacy or something. Hmmm...
>And you're qualified to determine that because...
Whatever qualification gave you the qualification to determine that they should be able to own guns, let's go with that one.
>How is stripping people of their rights- aka, turning them into criminals should they continue to try and practice them, not criminalizing them?
Many people do not have the full set of rights enjoyed by other citizens. Children do not have many rights, but they are not criminals. Stroke victims and Alzheimer's sufferers can be declared incompetent, but they are not criminals. Servicemen lose some of their First and Fifth amendment rights when they enlist in the military, but they are not criminals.
restricting people's rights =/= criminalization
>The US military isn't entirely effective at screening for one thing, so it can't be effective at screening for anything
Bravo. Just the kind of logic I'd expect from you.
And it's not illegal to be a gang member anyway.
>>Wait, so you're saying the military doesn't encourage responsible gun ownership?
I'm saying the military's screening process is a joke.
I'm also saying that responsible gun ownership, and training to shoot poor brown people (adults and kids) in a country you have no business being in because the news back home convinced everyone you're looking for WMDS that don't exist- only to come home and snap and beat your wife and dog because someone set off a firecracker, are not the same thing.
>Whatever qualification gave you the qualification to determine that they should be able to own guns
The concept of natural rights?
Enlightenment era concepts studied for a few hundred years that kids start learning about in grade k-8 social studies?
Wew, real tough there fam.
Perhaps you should be encouraging it then, instead of opposing any and all restrictions on the matter. We can't establish responsible ownership of everyone is allowed to own one and there's no accountability for it.
Our regulation of car ownership is more stringent.
People complain about astroturfing like if any organization other than the school get involved in the logistics, then the protests are fake and should be ignored.
I don't begrudge the highschoolers that American Federation of Teachers or whatever paid for their meals and bus rides. They're likeminded people who are participating in the protest.
To be astroturfing is a concern to me when the intended result is an illusory idea regarding the level of genuine concern on an ideological level regarding the point of the assembly. When people are given compensation to lobby for policies they otherwise wouldn't have as much of an interest in; in particular if they are paid for their time, handed talking points, given scripts meant to sound organic.
>I'm saying the military's screening process is a joke.
It may not be good for much, but it requires you to spend ten weeks in the close proximity of your peers, and to be able to follow orders. Nikolas Cruz was, by accounts of his peers, teachers, parents, and basically everyone else around him, a disturbed person, who regularly talked about all the people who he wanted to kill. He could not even make it through school without being expelled.
The current "background check" process requires you to tick some boxes and that's it.
>Enlightenment era concepts studied for a few hundred years that kids start learning about in grade k-8 social studies?
Yeah, nobody in the time of the Enlightenment proposed emptying the lunatic asylums and endowing them with the full rights that were given to everyone else.
I don’t know. I’m an incredibly jaded cynic, and lots of people on many other issues have sensible ideas that speak up, but few are heard. It feels like he was given a massive push even though he was not in harms way when the shots were fired. To me he seems fake, I guess you could say veneer thin.
>We can't establish responsible ownership of everyone is allowed to own one and there's no accountability for it.
Your right, which is why we already have background checks :)
>Our regulation of car ownership is more stringent.
The concept of National Carry Reciprocity being touted as a frightening concept by the left proves this is not the case.
My driver's license won't be invalidated crossing state lines, I don't need to pass a background check when I buy a car, and if I paint it black and put a tuning chip in it I won't be arrested for "illegally modifying an assault car".
Moreover I can drive my car onto school/government properties.
What's next- you claim they're more regulated than vaginas?
Not necessarily no, But then a bigger question comes up. The people who are giving him this push, what do they get out of it? People usually expect something in return such as money, power or both. People behind the scenes have invested a great deal of time and energy into him and the young lady with the shaved head,so what do those people want?
There got to be more than that. There’s been a tremendous amount of media/political attention to this,even more than the sandy hook shootings. Someone or some group is getting more than just there policy put in place, again I’m a jaded cynic so I usually think ulterior motives behind everything.
Never ascribe to malice what can simply be ascribed to happenstance.
In this case the happenstance is that the gun lobby had made their position on gun regulation extremely brittle. By opposing any and all changes to existing regulation they set themselves up for the first sufficiently charismatic voice to drop a more sensible (to the overwhelming majority of Americans) opinion than them, and they have NO REPLY to this.
They can't make the conversation about repeal of the 2nd amendment or seizing all guns because he's not asking for that. They can't even say he has something personal to gain from it because he's a student - he's actually making his life and education harder by doing all this.
He's the first person to come along and seem more reasonable. Because they can't give any ground at all on regulation they have to try and dismantle him personally instead.
Hence the tweeting about his college acceptance rate.
>Someone or some group is getting more than just there policy put in place
People have died for less. Granted, most of those people did so at a time when life was cheap and miserable instead of first-world comfy, but it's still something people care about sometimes.
>He's the first person to come along and seem more reasonable.
>Hey, what if instead of having politicians and celebrities who know nothing of gun laws, gun crime, gun culture or even the basics of "what is a gun" talk about gun control
>we get a couple teenagers who know nothing of gun laws, gun crime, gun culture or even the basics of "what is a gun" talk about gun control
>every time someone points out that their wrong about anything, we remind them they are arguing with a literal child to shut them up
Half of the reason we cant have an "adult, reasonable, common sense" talk about gun control is because the left refuses to talk about actual issues with our gun laws. Someone hung up on assault rifles that aren't actually assault rifles and the misnomer "gun show loophole" take center stage and proudly present to the world their own ignorance. When you come along and drag out the hundredth pack of dead kids to show why we need gun control, having a teenager do the talking isnt whats going to change someones mind any more than the 99 soccer moms before them who couldnt tell a drill bit from a bullet
I’m quite the opposite. Never ascribe to happenstance what can simply be ascribed to malice.
While I agree the gun lobby has dug in their heels to much on some form of gun laws, this feels contrived. He’s not really charismatic and seems to just regurgitate what he’s told. And while he hasn’t been demanding the repeal of the 2nd amendment, others have. One being a former Supreme Court judge I believe. If anything would have moved people I would have thought the sandy hook shooting would have, not this. Is the school in question in a rich area? Was anyone who was affluent shot at? Is the area surrounding the school a district with a large amount of political clout? I’m just trying to figure out why this one shooting is the one that broke the camels back.
Lmao yeah another NRA recruitment drive courtesy of and paid for by the left. Another massive boost to gun sales because you got the gun control lobby blowing another couple hundred million on some shit thatll go nowhere. If youre going to get a narcissistic sociopath to be the face of your movement, at least follow the rights lead and make sure hes charismatic too
My guess is that this whole issue has been a pressure cooker. As more shootings happen, pressure builds. Pressure releases naturally over time (as people forget), but can also be released faster when the problem is seen as being addressed (new legislation, new security measures, etc). Right now there's been far too many shootings to the point where the natural pressure release isn't doing shit, and there has been zero action for artificial pressure release. The left hasn't passed any gun control, and the right hasn't done jack shit about the issues they blame instead of guns (mental health, video games, more guns, whatever). This apparent lack of action has caused shit to boil over, especially as the shootings have escalated in frequency and scale.
To illustrate my pressure cooker idea, here's a timeline of major shootings (with body count) and gun control legislation since the 1980s:
>1982 Wilkes-Barre (13)
>1983 Wah Mee (13)
>1984 San Ysidro (22 including shooter, high score holder for 7 years)
>1986 Edmond Post (15 including shooter)
>1991 Luby's (24 including shooter, high score holder for 15 years)
>1999 Columbine (15 including 2 shooters)
>2007 Virginia Tech (33 including shooter, high score holder for 9 years)
>2009 Geneva County (11 including shooter)
>2009 Binghamton (14 including shooter)
>2009 Fort Hood (13)
>2012 Aurora (12)
>2012 Sandy Hook (28 including shooter)
>2013 Navy Yard (13 including shooter)
>2015 San Bernardino (16 including 2 shooters)
>2016 Orlando (50 including shooter, high score holder for 1 year)
>2017 Sutherland Springs (27 including shooter)
>2017 Las Vegas (59 including shooter, current high score holder)
>2018 Stoneman Douglas (17)
Notice how the frequency of shootings went up (and the rate of record breaking), and notable legislation dropped from once a decade to never (and technically negative in one decade).
Strange as it may sound,I suspect the gun industry to be behind those protests. Gun sales have rocketed with people buying in fear of not being able to do so in the future. And at most this will end in the ban of a few things which you can replace with the new "not-bumpstock"or "not-an-assaultrifle"sold at a premium.
If you ever get the opportunity to work with/for politicians or people of great wealth behind the curtain,you will realize how much they do out of pure hate and spite that everyone on the outside looking in views as just coincidence or happenstance. It’s rather chilling.
>Almost like there's a driving force to all this, huh?
If you're trying to imply there's a conspiracy driving up the shootings, I have a few counterpoints to that. First, the pressure cooker idea can be applied to other problems, and is thus a natural phenomenon. Let's look at another mass casualty type: bombings. These things followed a similar pattern, except the casualty numbers for the average attack is much lower. In fact, there are many incidents of nobody dying, or even just the bombers dying. These incidents don't drive up the public pressure sufficiently until the 90's, when suddenly every other motherfucker decides since the commies are no more it's time to topple the American government.
>1993 WTC bombing (6 dead, 1k wounded)
>1995 Oklahoma City (168 dead, 500 wounded, deadliest bombing in US history)
>1996 Atlanta Olympcs (2 dead, 100 wounded)
>1998 Birmingham Abortion (1 dead, 1 wounded) *this one is more in line with pre-90's bombings
This culminates in the 2001 9/11 attacks, which, while not bombings, were the capstone of the 90's terror wave. This lead to the massive increase in counter-terrorism, and a massive overhaul in counter-terror investigation and interdiction (huge pressure release). From this point on it won't be until the 2013 Boston Marathon bomber that any bomb succeeds in detonating, and even then the casulty numbers were brought back in line to their pre-90's levels.
Second, by correlating these two together we can see how waves of violence build on themselves. When one group isn't stopped, they don't just step up their own game, but they inspire others to try bigger, bolder plays. Oklahoma City doesn't happen without previous bombings demonstrating weaknesses in US security. Similarly, more shooters have gleaned information off each other's shootings and increase their effectiveness.
[out of characters, continuing...]
I'm personally amazed it took this long for someone to have the idea of the Vegas shooter, which combines the high target density of school shootings with the range advantage of the Texas bell tower shooter. In the case of bombings, the massive crackdown and increase in investigative power not only capped off the previous wave but prevented it from building out of control. For instance, the most recent Texas bomber was barely able to pull off his spree compared to the previous Unabomber as few other bombers have been around to probe the bomb security network of the US.
Third, there should naturally be more shootings due to the increase in use population. Assuming only crazy idiots do these things, and crazy idiots are a fixed % of the population, there should be more of them in absolute terms. Even if the shooting per capita doesn't change, the absolute number of newsworthy shootings should rise because the threshold for media attention does not really change (though if the average casualties per event continue to increase we may see the bar for newsworthiness rise).
Fourth, we haven't seen any real effort to stop these shootings. Sure we have plenty of talk, good and bad ideas (loads of bad ideas), but nothing substantial has been passed or approved. Again, the left has passed no gun control measures, the right has done nothing about mental health, and for everyone in between there doesn't seem to have been any effort by law enforcement to improve or adjust their handling of these active shooter events. In comparison, since 2001 the US has fucking cracked down on bombings, law enforcement is on top of those things and slipping up on only three notable occasions in over 15 years (aforementioned Boston Marathon and Texas bombers as well as that other fairly recent bombing in NYC), all of which were less deadly than most of the notable shootings in that same time frame (though the wounded numbers are higher).
>>241876 [concluded, there are days I really wish they increased the character limit just for this board]
So taking all that in, I don't think there's any nefarious force driving up either the shootings or the protests about said shootings. There simply too many crazy assholes feeding into each other, and not enough real solutions to counteract them. I think there's genuinely a lot of people who are sick of all the violence, the problem is the proposed solutions don't sit right with large portions of the population. The left thinks removing guns is the solution, which the right will never have because that violates the constitution. The right wants to just arm everyone and hope MAD works at an individual level, while the left thinks that's just going to make things worse.
It's essentially a negative feedback loop. There is no widely popular solution that won't potentially create more problems than it solves. Because there is no solution, shooters are embolden to carry out their crimes. And because the crimes continue, pressure builds for a solution. Return to step 1.
America was founded in a revolution with guns. Some people don't care, some people haven't forgotten.
It sucks that people die, so lets let the government dictate what we can do?
Because when people gave away freedoms to the state it always works out for the better for the people
..is what I think many Americans think; the state is something to keep small and try and avoid.
Here in Canada we feel the state actually aint that bad and has our best interests in mind.
It seems odd people in a democracy would be afraid of their government, because by definition a democracy is the people.
Why be afraid of the people? It's not like you guys have deep seated racial and cultural issues to resolve.
Well, they aren't wrong, but who's fault is that?
40% of American adults are obese. They spend an average of 80% of their waking hours in front of a screen. Not necessarily bad, but it seems all they are doing is watching tv, etc.
Democracy is only as good as the people in it, and boy oh boy you Americans take the cake.
Canada for example has 51% of adults with a 4 year degree and read 6 books a year.
It ain't hard guys. I love my guns, but I own way more books then guns.
and on that uplifting note https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttQ
>Here in Canada we feel the state actually aint that bad and has our best interests in mind.
Here in the states we have it well documented in F.O.I. archives that our own government has a pathological history of doing the kind of diabolical things the Soviet Union or North Korea would do, to our own citizens.
They've secretly done so many crazy medical experiments on people, abducted people, assassinated people, tortured people, lied to everyone, even plotted to pull off a false flag terrorist attack on the American people to draw us into a war (Operation Northwoods)
They send soldiers off to die in wars, which keep turning out to have been entered by deceptive pretenses. There is a sentiment among many that the government isn't ran for the voters, but for the wealthy elite who have only their own interest in mind.
Maybe we all should.
In a society where everyone is an asshole, only a fool would stop being one first.
Which means we must all surfer asholitry for all time?
When these impasses happen the youth brake though. Let the kids do it. People bash menials, but they are the most tuned in, well educated generation in history, we are the idiots and assholes. They are trying to love and learn
In a functioning democracy people are the state.
Either America isn't a working democracy, or more likely, you guys need to take a long unblinking look in the mirror of history.
For example https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1
We are trying to come to turms with what we did and are doing to people.
Improvement starts by acknowledging there is a problem. America could be so much better. No joke you guys have the 6th best country, you should be the best
The USA is not a real democracy, it's a democratic republic, the people are quite removed from control of the state. Isn't it a similar system in Canada with leaders like your prime minister being voted on to handle the governing?
Democracy and democratic republics aren't that ideal anyway, if the majority choose one thing everyone has to live with it, and often the majority is 51% of the voters ruling over the other 49%.
The average citizen is too stupid to be in charge of decision making, so they let the electorate do it, but like I said they are stupid and choose bad leaders.
Many won't ever acknowledge there are problems, they have been almost programmed to automatically either ignore, or dismiss anything bad that the people in charge are doing as the delusions of schizoid conspiracy theorists.
That's just what a Reptilian would say!
You obviously are tuned in as are most people on 4chan (god help me for saying that).
I try and motivate people to be critical about what they see. Christ it's your life and your Country. We Canadians actually care deeply about how badly you are fucking up.
If anyone says there is some one else to blame for a problem pay attention. This person is trying to make you believe that you can never make a mistake.
Vote for this person because he seems to know what he's talking about, soon those that don't believe will be sent away. You may notice a change in the information you have access to, this is for your benefit.
Obviously make fun of and always question those in "power" is helpful.
Canada isn’t much of a democracy. A government only requires 38 percent or more of the vote to be deemed a majority. And the people running in the ridings don’t represent the constituents to the government, they represent the government to the constituents. So even if every person in a riding were to demand their MP to vote against their party they wouldn’t. Pure democracy would look a lot like the Italian government, many small parties having to work together. Then squabbling over who is in power ultimately causing government to grind to a halt and New el cations to be held.
Nobody on the right knows anything about gun laws or gun policy either, or bullets for that matter.
1) They'll take our guns: No personal weapons ban has ever had any form of confiscation -- most haven't even had voluntary confiscation programs. The 1986 NFA (machine gun ban) and the 1994 AWB just banned new commercial sales -- they didn't and don't even ban private sales. And if we don't move to a full ban on some class of guns, people forget how successful regulation has been on suppressors, something that one would think would be so attractive to street criminals that they would flood the black market.
2) Any study on the comparative measures of gun policy ever. You always get it wrong. There's only one type of study that matters and that's one that can be held up by its peers in the policy research field as having controlled its variables -- there are very few of those, and they find either specific effects of specific policy measures or no effects for general weak measures. Nobody in any such controlled study has found that wholesale removal of controls makes things safer in some way, partly because it's hard to find test cases of that get a good measure of any sort of gun policy -- especially a negating policy -- but to say otherwise is disingenuous.
3) Just because some heretics/morons buy an AR-15 chambered for a 9mm Parabellum, that doesn't mean there's no difference between an assault rifle and a pistol, and you fucking know it. Just because you can replace a magazine in less than 1 second doesn't mean there's no difference between a 10-round magazine limit and a 100-round drum. Just because you're an amateur blacksmith with 20 hours a week to make parts doesn't mean any idiot will make their own after-market mags and bump-stocks and suppressors, thus making any such regulations pointless. Unless you find smiths willing to hand-make parts for thousands of scofflaws who can only pay mass-produced prices, regulation makes a difference.
First, it doesn't disprove my point, since none of that fell under any *weapons ban* -- not even a local one like the City of Chicago or NYC ordinances that were attempted. Many types of rights have been jeopardized due to mental health reactionary legislation -- for one thing it can circumvent due process to incarcerate without habeas corpus.
And yet the anti-gun-control right, including the NRA, are exactly the ones who are advocating for more mental health screenings, more direct interventions based on mental health, and yes even mental health-based gun control to that extent.
While it doesn’t technically negate your point, it does show how any gun law can quickly be taken to the extreme. And I think that's what is at the heart of the issue. Gun owners don’t want to see a law put in place that would eventually be used by anti gun lobbyists to quickly begin creating more gun bans,that would create more gun bans that would create more gun bans, like ripples in a pond. At the end of the day it comes down to trust, and neither side trusts the other on this issue.
That time Laura Ingraham sent a college reporter to infiltrate a Dartmouth LGBT student organization, called the participants “cheerleaders for latent campus sodomites,” and then sent taped conversations to the students' parents. Over a decade later, she'd apologize because her brother had AIDs.
>First they came for our short-range tactical ballistic nukes.
>Then they came for our bump stocks.
Next they will come for YOU, and then how will you defend your family against the Deep State as they anthrax your infant children for pointing finger-guns and asserting their gender identity?
Why did you skip explaining how his college admissions information became public?
That's right Mr. Hogg posted it online himself, and Ingram saw it and rightfully mocked his whiny bitch ass.
Notice how it is OK for a liberal to publicly attack a woman doing her job?
Insufferable Hogg brat thinks he is some kind of special snowflake to whom all doors should open. Watch him run for office next;
"Up next, the creation of a demagogue."
Basically this. The right wing cannot fight Parkland Survivors on the merits so all they can do is attack their character. What's lost in the story is Hoggs was accepted to multiple other colleges while media implies he was rejected by them all.
I do find it ironic that the right wing has the audacity to call Hogg a bully when it's Ingraham who has a vast history of bully people by using appeal to authority. 'Shut up and (do activity here.) And good for Hogg for not taking her fake apology.
there's not actually anything to refute because there's no substance to his objection to the rights of other people
you can't revoke the rights of half the country for a statistically insignificant cause of death. even if somehow it became a statistically significant cause of death, it doesn't matter.
gun revocation is a form of class warfare. "i will keep my 14 foot high fences topped with razor wire, endlessly expanding surveillance apparatus, and 3-man deep security detail of armed killers, but you can't have guns to defend yourself you little prole, because you are a second class citizen."
yeah fuck off
>liberal snowflake that thinks every college should just accept him
From what I've read, he just seems disappointed. No sense of entitlement, or anger; he's just kinda bummed. This woman mocked him for it for no reason, and he didn't take too kindly to that. Overreaction? Maybe. She's definitely a cunt for sure, though. You people acting like this story is important at all, or trying to attack his character because you can't offer a decent counterargument are just sad
>you can't revoke the rights of half the country because of a statistically insignificant cause of death
No, but we can see to it that common sense regulations are put in place that ensure people who are able to obtain firearms used by the military are properly trained and pathologically evaluated before being able to carry one as if they were in the military
>the rich will have armed killers and the proletariat will have nothing
The rich would be subjected to the same restrictions as proles, and the proles will always have a massive numbers advantage
>his 15 minutes of fame will be over soon
It's been well over 15 minutes, and I wouldn't be surprised if another school shooting occurred within the month. I don't see this shit dying down as long as kids keep getting shot in the classroom
>They'll take our guns: No personal weapons ban has ever had any form of confiscation
It hasn't because people have fought to keep it from happening. This is like saying Federal government has never violated the 1st Amendment because when they have tried people have challenged and won
>Any study on the comparative measures of gun policy ever. You always get it wrong.
Mostly these studies are studied are cited to disprove any sort of significant link between gun legislation and crime. I know there is a More Guns, Less Crime crowd but most people cite stats simply to show a lack of significant correlation between restrictive gun legislation any effect
>Just because you can replace a magazine in less than 1 second doesn't mean there's no difference between a 10-round magazine limit and a 100-round drum.
There is no difference when it comes to the aims of these pieces of legislation. People aren't saying "tactically a 10 mag is as good as a 30 round mag (though some people would argue this). They are saying "When a kid bursts into a crowded school intent on killing people it makes no difference if he has a 10 rounder or a 30 rounder." Magazine capacity is relevant in competition and when actively engaging someone. Since these mass killers are not looking for a fight but just to kill mag capacity it irrelevant
>Parkland survivor David Hogg calls on advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham's Fox News show
Meanwhile, the pussy backed out of a televised debate with a pro-gun student from his school, knowing he’d get his ass handed to him on national tv and be exposed as a dumbass and charlatan.
Because the anti-gun fundies on the Left don't want any kind of open and honest debate of the issue, they simply want to spew their lies without constraint while shutting down the free speech of others, then declare victory.
I don't remember this being a discussion about clear backpacks, but I agree that that is one way to help solve this problem. Though it doesn't do much about shooters that just walk in through the front and go class to class shooting students
Democracy is a fucking joke. Government officials are a different class than the rest of the nation and are totally self pleasing and insulated. People here mostly just want to be left alone, the state by nature of its existence, denies that. We are all right anarchists in a way.
>The gun show loophole is still a thin
P L E A S E S T O P
This shitty meme needs to die, I can't even get anyone to explain what the gun show loop hole even is.
The only time you don't need to do any paper work for a gun sale is during a direct sale. IE selling a legal gun(s) to directly to another person who can also legally own them. Its still illegal if the sale involves an illegal weapon/item or a convicted felon. But at that point you might as say "Crime is bad, it shouldn't be allowed" no shit.
If you sell less than 4 guns a year, you dont need a full background check. If I want to sell Bill my over-under so his kid can go skeet shooting with us with his very own gun, I dont need to register with the FBI as a gun shop and do a full backround check of a guy Ive known for 30 years to sell him a break action shotgun.
The Gun Show Loophole is called that to invoke a certain stereotype of people who benefit from it. If any of these people had ever been to a gun show they would know that everyone there is already registered or breaking the law.
>what is legal deterrence
This is by far the dumbest argument against gun control I see used commonly.
>criminals will get guns regardless of the law becayse they're criminals
By this logic no law anywhere is effective. If criminals never care about the consequences what's the point in laws to begin with.
Yeah, like Craigslist. Or any one of dozens of websites that facilitate that sort of thing. It's getting easier, and easier to conduct private sale and the practice is almost totally unregulated.
In fact, I can't even get any good numbers of how often it happened last year, because the Dickey Amendment effectively bars any federal funding of gun violence research.
Tell y'all what, if I'm going to push for ANYTHING on the matter, that's my hill to die on. Repeal the Dickey Amendment. We will never reach any real conclusions on this subject as long as the research into it is blinded and deafened by idiotic 20-year old legislation.
It's adding a legal deterrent at a different point in the chain. Right now, there only needs to be one criminal for someone who, say, has been institutionalized, to buy a gun in a direct sale and shoot up a school. If what's been called the "gun show loophole" is closed, it will take two.
Compare to, say, increasingly destructive material. For you to purchase a hand grenade, there need to be three instead of two: someone who steals the grenade from the military, someone who fences that hand grenade onto the black market, and you.
Only absolutely none of those totalitarian regimes advocated for common sense gun control as a part of their platforms, and instead relied on slapping immediate gun bans (and only on certain parts of the population in many instances) once they had already garnered significant political power, you revisionist faggot.
Ignoring the relative differences between different nations (which is why I'm not going to advocate for anything like, say, Australia's system) we have no such proof in this country that such laws work.
Or don't work.
In fact we've pretty much got jack shit, because federal funding for gun violence research has been banned for twenty years.
Any big studies on the subject that are even remotely up to date will inevitably suffer from ownership bias, because no one that doesn't have a big dollar invested in the outcome of the study wouldn't COMMISSION such a study.
Thanks to the gun lobby, we actually CAN'T make good gun legislation - because our govt is blind and deaf to what works and what does not.
It's a hell of a lot harder to hit your target when you're not allowed to look at the fucking thing.
If you'd actually studied Locke you'd know that naturally-endowed rights are explicitly loaned by members of political society to the state for the purpose of transitioning from a state of nature to a liberal (law-ruled) government. The loaning of those natural rights is what gives the "political society" the right to stage a revolution in the first place (think of justifications for the American Revolution and you will find this language), and it in no way indicates that political society can't loan their right to owning a rifle to the state.
Hey, if I sell marijuana or cigs through craigslist I commit a crime in my state even the former is legal in my state and the latter is legal federally.
But if you want Constitutionally protected rights, if I sell or even give for free certain types of software or data (copyright, classified, trade secret, IP, or information under court injunction) on craigslist it can be a crime. Certain types of computer code is considered a weapon under federal law, some of which is explicitly banned from export (cryptography algorithms or specific viruses like Stuxnet -- in which case the knowledge and speech itself IS the weapon -- nobody bitches about the 1st Amendment not protecting that).
The government has made it clear that it can restrict the possession and distribution of certain weapons -- even information weapons like computer viruses, or information itself like nuclear and chemical-weapons tech. Why do you think the 2A is unimpeachable when the 1A is not?
As a libertarian, I agree. Laws and police (that government steals our money to pay) are a ridiculous extension of government oppression into civil liberties. Abolish the police force, bring back the civil posse system and make guns easier to squire, along with private security/police forces and many of our problems will be fixed.
>muh wild west
>I wanna ride into the sunset and shoot bad guys
>pew pew lookit mah big ole gun
>stupid daddy -- I mean, the gubbermint can't take away my toy -- guns
friendly reminder that the libertarian/ancap's idea of the "Wild West" is literally a child's power fantasy. You can tell because none of them ever consider the possibility that they might be the ones getting shot, or why a private police force should be any more legitimate than a public one.
that's nothing at all like what he said, idiot
he said that conservacucks are attacking literal children for disagreeing with them
>They're just kids!
>If they're just kids, you shouldn't insult their characters or bully them.
>They're not just kids, so they need to nut up and deal with the fact that we're taking them seriously.
>If they're not kids, you should take their arguments seriously instead of just bullying them.
>Why would we take their arguments seriously? They're just kids!
repeat circular stirring motion ad nauseum, add conspiracy theories about crisis actors for crazy-spice, serve perpetually.
I'm a billionaire. I plan to murder my bitchy wife and her entire family and then will hire Blackwater to prevent anybody's private police from arresting me or even investigating/questioning me for it.
Also might as well murder some hookers and eat some orphans while I'm at it.
>Used to describe Trump supporters, especially the more extreme.
Did you reply to the wrong person by accident? I'm making fun of the NRA shills, not the people defending the students.
(And even if it turns out that you agree with me, you could be doing a lot better than "haha I drink ur tears")
Have you read his list of nonsense that he wants? Lets see.. no guns for those with mental illnesses, which is already federal law. No guns for "criminals" .. which I would assume he means violent criminals, which again is already federal law (you don't get a felony by jay-walking). No guns for those accused of domestic violence.. which, again, is already federal law. Universal background checks, which will change pretty much nothing. The only time a background check hasn't been done is when it's a private sale.. and only about 20% of sales are private. Then you have to hope that they're done properly. Remember Dylann Roof? He wants to increase the age of ownership to 21.. for some illogical and irrational reason - it won't change a damn thing. He wants to ban bump stocks.. which is short-sighted. He probably doesn't know what the NRA would like to see happen with them; he probably thinks the NRA wants everyone to have one. The NRA wants them to be regulated as if they were automatic weapons. He also calls guns "weapons of mass destruction" .. as if he didn't attend school and learn what that term means. Finally, in one of his statements he's critical of the NRA.. and says he respects people who want to join an organization that supports safe gun ownership. Both of those in the same fucking sentence. It's like he doesn't have a clue what the NRA is at all.
Yeah. I'm certain this genius has great ideas.. just not where guns are concerned.
>no guns for those with mental illnesses, which is already federal law.
I don't think it is. If I'm not mistaken this has been talked about a lot in pro-gun circles as a violation of the Fourth or the Seventh Amendment. Not positive which, but anyway, you can't abridge somebody's civil liberties without a trial, and a diagnosis doesn't count. Do you have the actual law in question at hand?
>you don't get a felony by jay-walking
There are relevant violent misdemeanors.
>No guns for those accused of domestic violence.. which, again, is already federal law.
Closest thing I could find to this is the Lautenberg Amendment, which doesn't cover people accused of domestic violence, but convicted of it. I'd like to see this law as well.
>He also calls guns "weapons of mass destruction" .. as if he didn't attend school and learn what that term means
Do you know what a figure of speech is, or a metaphor? You should, if you attended school. Guns are weapons that can cause a certain level of indiscriminate violence and destruction of life, which is what happened in his high school. I hope you didn't mean for people to take "he used WMD wrong!" as a serious argument when it was obviously intentional.
>Finally, in one of his statements he's critical of the NRA.. and says he respects people who want to join an organization that supports safe gun ownership. Both of those in the same fucking sentence. It's like he doesn't have a clue what the NRA is at all.
NRA shills are so fucking dense, they don't even know when you're insulting them. He's calling the NRA a group that doesn't care about safe gun ownership despite their claim to -- which is accurate. The NRA is run by big-money business lobbyists, not shotgun-toting hobbyists who just wanna shoot trap -- as long as their bottom line doesn't go down, they couldn't give a fuck.
I don't who told you I feel like there should be restrictions on the First Amendment, I personally feel that there should be no libel laws even
The US was heavily involved in creating Stuxnet and it is not illegal to create or sell any software, except with intent to commit crime, i.e. "Hey bro I wanna ex's bank account" And you sell him something to do that for that specific purpose.
There are many companies that sell access to malware samples or provide them for free. Cryptographic algorithms like AES, Blowfish, and PGP are not only legal but widely distributed through both free and paid channels and they are protected under First Amendment and I would oppose any regulation of their creation or distribution.
But all of that is going outside the scope of this thread. My point was there is no need to another law to make something MORE illegal (the sale of guns to prohibited persons). Though I do personally believe there should be no prohibited persons
>a professional acts in an unprofessional manner against a high school student at least half her age), and who was involved in a national tragedy
>somehow her supporters act surprised when advertisers decide to pull ads from her program after her unprofessional actions incited anger from the public regarding this hot-button issue
She is the older, more experienced adult in this situation. Why should she be happy to lower herself just to get a dig at some high schooler? She could just as easily left it at "I think this young man lacks the life experience necessary to form a sufficiently educated opinion on this matter. Furthermore, after the tragedy that rocked his school, and having lost people close to him in the attack, he must be under a great deal of stress, which might further influence his thought process in the heat of the moment. While I hope he and his fellow classmates can find closure one day, I would like to think that it shouldn't have to come at the expense of the rights of his fellow countrymen."
All she had to do was play the game. Instead she talked shit on social media and was shocked when advertisers - predictably - took their money and ran.
Part of it is coming from a growing sense that's present -- on the left for certain, and I suspect on the right as well -- that lines like those aren't cutting the mustard anymore. "Playing the game" doesn't seem to be convincing anybody who wasn't already convinced, and even seems to be convincing fewer of who it used to. At the very least, gun-lobby loyalists seem to think that's the case, which is just about the only reasonable explanation for thinking that this would be a smart move.
page took 0.0526 seconds to execute