The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
The Young Repubes are welcome to appear on Faux News, Rushbo, InsanityHannity, without doctored emails, of course. What’s the matter? Brietbart doesn’t have as talented writers to produce puff pieces for alt-righters’ consumption?
Great argument. I guess you win. The left has better puff-piece writers.
Also, if your argument is that the mainstream media doesn't have a left-leaning bias, then I guess we'll pretty much have to end it there.
Quit whining about it. It’s not like the right doesn’t have a megaphone to blast their message. The right is losing the message war on this issue, particularly. Too bad.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.
You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.
You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.
No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.
It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.
You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.
No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.
It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.
The fact that you say you “hope” that your opinion wouldn’t change if you experienced a new situation with new information suggests that your opinion is more affected by emotion than you like to think.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.
You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.
No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.
It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.
The fact that you say you “hope” that your opinion wouldn’t change if you experienced a new situation with new information suggests that your opinion is more affected by emotion than you like to think.
No. I say hope because I'm not a sociopath. Of course I'm emotionally affected by experiences. However, I do my best to arrive at decisions like this with logic rather than emotion. I always include new information when formulating an argument or opinion, however, there is no new information here. If someone shot at me or my friends, it would be a traumatic experience, but it wouldn't be "new information" for an argument.
I'll put it another way. I'm not pro gay marriage because I've met some gay people I like. Who cares how I personally feel about anyone when people's rights are concerned? I would be pro gay marriage if I'd never met any because there is nothing barring it in the constitution. If there was something barring it in the constitution, I would argue for an amendment based of my view of civil rights. Again, none of this has to do with my emotional connection to gays just as I would hope once there was distance from myself and my emotional reaction to being shot at, I would formulate my opinion based on my principals rather than emotion. My principals change with new information, not with new emotions.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Says the poster who responded with “arrogant trash” to a well written article about the kids in Florida, presumably because you didn’t like the mainstream media’s leftist bias.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Says the poster who responded with “arrogant trash” to a well written article about the kids in Florida, presumably because you didn’t like the mainstream media’s leftist bias.
Yes, I used that phrase in regards to the writer, not the poster, and then I provided my explanation. Again, never said I was perfect
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
@october22 Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?
Absolutely not! No one should on principal, regardless of where you stand on the larger debate. Additionally, that kind of talk from a president only bolsters my argument for gun ownership. I understand we're emotional after this tragedy, and we should be. But the left's pernicious attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen, especially during a presidency they fear, almost feels like a mental disorder or a complete disregard for human history. You can show me all the studies you want about guns and gun control and how they lead or don't lead to whatever you want (I'll point out things like suicide, isolated gang activity and plenty of things that the author's used to skew them for their agenda), but one thing is certain, a disarmed population is one step closer to tyrannical rule. There is no argument against that.
Ok, then I'd ask you to clarify this: "Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to?"
Those are your words and I have seen this particular piece of contradiction all over the internet this past week. How do you reconcile laying the blame on the government for not stopping Cruz when he committed no crimes? I haven't seen any examples of direct threats or actions that were actionable under the law as it stands. Until those are shown, the blame for Cruz not being stopped doesn't lie with the FBI, it lies with the hypocrite gun advocates who refuse to allow mental health to infringe on gun rights, and then use cries of "mental health" to distract and distort the issue after every tragedy.
@october22 Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?
Absolutely not! No one should on principal, regardless of where you stand on the larger debate. Additionally, that kind of talk from a president only bolsters my argument for gun ownership. I understand we're emotional after this tragedy, and we should be. But the left's pernicious attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen, especially during a presidency they fear, almost feels like a mental disorder or a complete disregard for human history. You can show me all the studies you want about guns and gun control and how they lead or don't lead to whatever you want (I'll point out things like suicide, isolated gang activity and plenty of things that the author's used to skew them for their agenda), but one thing is certain, a disarmed population is one step closer to tyrannical rule. There is no argument against that.
Ok, then I'd ask you to clarify this: "Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to?"
Those are your words and I have seen this particular piece of contradiction all over the internet this past week. How do you reconcile laying the blame on the government for not stopping Cruz when he committed no crimes? I haven't seen any examples of direct threats or actions that were actionable under the law as it stands. Until those are shown, the blame for Cruz not being stopped doesn't lie with the FBI, it lies with the hypocrite gun advocates who refuse to allow mental health to infringe on gun rights, and then use cries of "mental health" to distract and distort the issue after every tragedy.
Second Amendment advocates do not support the mentally ill owning firearms. I also don't believe in punishing pre-crime, and I don't have to in this case, especially. Here's an article describing the direct threats and actions that were reported to the school and law enforcement since you seem to have missed them:
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
We're all angry, and we should be. But you'd be better served directing your anger elsewhere as the facts aren't on your side, and your ideas about guns won't solve any problems. Even the most liberal publications, when they're being honest with the numbers, agree with that fact. I wish we could focus this energy on improving security, law enforcement, background checks and screenings, mental health etc rather than the 2nd Amendment, which isn't the problem. Gun restriction might feel good, but there is no evidence that proves it's effective at reducing homicide in societies similar to the US. Our goal should be solving the problem rather than creating ineffective new laws. That's really my last word on it. We could keep arguing forever here, but I'd rather not.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it.
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
We're all angry, and we should be. But you'd be better served directing your anger elsewhere as the facts aren't on your side, and your ideas about guns won't solve any problems. Even the most liberal publications, when they're being honest with the numbers, agree with that fact. I wish we could focus this energy on improving security, law enforcement, background checks and screenings, mental health etc rather than the 2nd Amendment, which isn't the problem. Gun restriction might feel good, but there is no evidence that proves it's effective at reducing homicide in societies similar to the US. Our goal should be solving the problem rather than creating ineffective new laws. That's really my last word on it. We could keep arguing forever here, but I'd rather not.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it.
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it.
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?
Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines. You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it.
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?
Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines. You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.
Ok, fair enough. I can see how that might have come off as me being a dick, but I was honestly just asking.
A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.
Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment.
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military? I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.
I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters, and fully automatic military grade weapons, none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you.
I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.
Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today. I can think of none.
I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:
I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it.
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?
Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines. You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.
Ok, fair enough. I can see how that might have come off as me being a dick, but I was honestly just asking.
We disagree. I'm happy to leave it there.
No it wasn't you, that was preemptive. Lots of people split hairs on the AR15, even though they understand the argument.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads
Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.
You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.
It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.
www.headstonesband.com
I'll put it another way. I'm not pro gay marriage because I've met some gay people I like. Who cares how I personally feel about anyone when people's rights are concerned? I would be pro gay marriage if I'd never met any because there is nothing barring it in the constitution. If there was something barring it in the constitution, I would argue for an amendment based of my view of civil rights. Again, none of this has to do with my emotional connection to gays just as I would hope once there was distance from myself and my emotional reaction to being shot at, I would formulate my opinion based on my principals rather than emotion. My principals change with new information, not with new emotions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/central-michigan-university-shooting-leaves-two-wounded-gunman-loose-n852611
Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
A new, huge review of gun research has bad news for the NRA - Vox https://apple.news/ARt8TMwDdSfCYIusJLkh3ow
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.
In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion. Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity. Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to?"
Those are your words and I have seen this particular piece of contradiction all over the internet this past week.
How do you reconcile laying the blame on the government for not stopping Cruz when he committed no crimes? I haven't seen any examples of direct threats or actions that were actionable under the law as it stands. Until those are shown, the blame for Cruz not being stopped doesn't lie with the FBI, it lies with the hypocrite gun advocates who refuse to allow mental health to infringe on gun rights, and then use cries of "mental health" to distract and distort the issue after every tragedy.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/
Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html
But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.
It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today. Time to mitigate the issue.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Of course I also believe in additional new controls like gun show loophole, universal background, etc.
We disagree. I'm happy to leave it there.
All good