Students Plan Walkout To Protest Mass Killings
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
Are you going to use an assault rifle on a herd of deer? or on ducks or rabbits? I think of it as any gun or device you would not use to animals hunt with.
Thanks, Dave, for your commonsense questions. To this question, you got no answer. It's a weapon of war.
I was really hoping David would honestly say, there is no use for "assault rifles" in the civilian population. Wow! How conveniently and selectively we answer questions. CM
How dishonest, I DID answer the question. And first, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Second, there is a use for weapons of war in the civilian population. The 2nd Amendment spells that out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Walkout planned to protest the mass killing of babies.I would support some time taken out of class for students to grieve the killing of children all around them.
Great idea! I think if we can stand behind laws that lead to less killing of innocent people, we will find harmony on both sides of the gun and abortion issues.
As I see it, the Dems shout "kill babies, not students!". And the Repubs shout "kill students, not babies!".
But why not Laws that protect both babies and students?
There are laws to protect students. You realize it is illegal to kill an innocent student with a gun right or with anything else for that matter?
If we pass laws that result in fewer deaths of innocent people, what's the problem?
I'm not saying that is a problem. But you put forth this narrative as if there are no laws to protect students which is simply not true.
What I'm saying is if we "take aim" on less innocent lives being lost, instead of bolstering laws that allow for the mass killing of innocent lives, we will begin to move in the right direction.
See this is the problem. Your phrasing is dishonest. There is NO law in the United states that "allow for the mass killing of innocent lives." It's dishonest to phrase it that way because no such law exists.
Why are so many needlessly dying if current laws do not allow for this?
Why are there so many people who speed when the law doesn't allow for it? Why are there so many drunk drivers when the law doesn't allow for it?
We live in a sinful, fallen world. That is why.
If changes in abortion laws would = less innocent death, why do you oppose changes in gun laws that would save more lives?
Changes in the abortion law would guarantee less innocent death without impacting law abiding citizens. Gun laws are not guaranteed to save more lives and would impact law abiding citizens.
Doesn't less lead = less dead?
That's cute...but no, not necessarily. Most guns used in killings are illegally obtained anyway. No gun law will change that.
But, it comes back to a "well regulated militia" where this would be extremely rare. And what we have today, an "unregulated militia".
Besides, why don't you want laws that lessen killing instead of present laws that insure it will continue?
There are many steps that could have been taken in the most recent killings that would have prevented without gun control.
However, I do support:
- More extensive background checks.
- Gun safety classes being provided and/or mandated.
- Laws that allow a sort of restraining order for a gun owner if there is an instance of severe mental instability.
But why do you want assault weapons, designed only for the mass killing of human beings kept legal? Pretending they will not be used that way?
Can you tell me what an assault weapon is?
as·sault ri·fle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.Are you going to use an assault rifle on a herd of deer? or on ducks or rabbits? I think of it as any gun or device you would not use to animals hunt with.
That's a very vague definition. And what does hunting have to do with the conversation? Nothing.
That's OK. But hunting has everything to do with how people need guns for purposes other than hunting. It shows evil intent on the owners of any gun designed for the mass extermination of human beings.
No that isn't what it shows at all. You have this ridiculous idea that gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment and its intent, intend to kill in mass numbers. That is not the case at all. If you want to be taken seriously you and @C_M_ really need to quit using that line or reasoning because it is not reality.
Why would I go shopping with a bulldozer? Or hunting with an assault rifle (using the commonly understood definition)?
We aren't talking about hunting. That's the point. We are talking about defense.
If you have a gun designed to kill people in great numbers, you are evil and will use it for that purpose if you can justify it. It is that simple.
No, it is not that simple. There are thousands of gun owners who do not use these weapons for evil. It is the RARE occurance that these weapons are used for evil in this country.. RARE. As in, it hardly ever happens.
If the lunatick can justify using an assault rifle on the masses, certainly these not so crazy can justify using them too.
That statement makes no sense at all. You just equated an insane person with a sane person.
Why do they want these weapons of war if they do not plan to use them that way - once they or the lunaticks can justify doing so?
Defense.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
Are you going to use an assault rifle on a herd of deer? or on ducks or rabbits? I think of it as any gun or device you would not use to animals hunt with.
Thanks, Dave, for your commonsense questions. To this question, you got no answer. It's a weapon of war.
I was really hoping David would honestly say, there is no use for "assault rifles" in the civilian population. Wow! How conveniently and selectively we answer questions. CM
How dishonest, I DID answer the question. And first, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Second, there is a use for weapons of war in the civilian population. The 2nd Amendment spells that out.
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Walkout planned to protest the mass killing of babies.I would support some time taken out of class for students to grieve the killing of children all around them.
Great idea! I think if we can stand behind laws that lead to less killing of innocent people, we will find harmony on both sides of the gun and abortion issues.
As I see it, the Dems shout "kill babies, not students!". And the Repubs shout "kill students, not babies!".
But why not Laws that protect both babies and students?
There are laws to protect students. You realize it is illegal to kill an innocent student with a gun right or with anything else for that matter?
If we pass laws that result in fewer deaths of innocent people, what's the problem?
I'm not saying that is a problem. But you put forth this narrative as if there are no laws to protect students which is simply not true.
What I'm saying is if we "take aim" on less innocent lives being lost, instead of bolstering laws that allow for the mass killing of innocent lives, we will begin to move in the right direction.
See this is the problem. Your phrasing is dishonest. There is NO law in the United states that "allow for the mass killing of innocent lives." It's dishonest to phrase it that way because no such law exists.
Why are so many needlessly dying if current laws do not allow for this?
Why are there so many people who speed when the law doesn't allow for it? Why are there so many drunk drivers when the law doesn't allow for it?
We live in a sinful, fallen world. That is why.
If changes in abortion laws would = less innocent death, why do you oppose changes in gun laws that would save more lives?
Changes in the abortion law would guarantee less innocent death without impacting law abiding citizens. Gun laws are not guaranteed to save more lives and would impact law abiding citizens.
Doesn't less lead = less dead?
That's cute...but no, not necessarily. Most guns used in killings are illegally obtained anyway. No gun law will change that.
But, it comes back to a "well regulated militia" where this would be extremely rare. And what we have today, an "unregulated militia".
Besides, why don't you want laws that lessen killing instead of present laws that insure it will continue?
There are many steps that could have been taken in the most recent killings that would have prevented without gun control.
However, I do support:
- More extensive background checks.
- Gun safety classes being provided and/or mandated.
- Laws that allow a sort of restraining order for a gun owner if there is an instance of severe mental instability.
But why do you want assault weapons, designed only for the mass killing of human beings kept legal? Pretending they will not be used that way?
Can you tell me what an assault weapon is?
as·sault ri·fle
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.Are you going to use an assault rifle on a herd of deer? or on ducks or rabbits? I think of it as any gun or device you would not use to animals hunt with.
That's a very vague definition. And what does hunting have to do with the conversation? Nothing.
That's OK. But hunting has everything to do with how people need guns for purposes other than hunting. It shows evil intent on the owners of any gun designed for the mass extermination of human beings.
No that isn't what it shows at all. You have this ridiculous idea that gun owners who support the 2nd Amendment and its intent, intend to kill in mass numbers. That is not the case at all. If you want to be taken seriously you and @C_M_ really need to quit using that line or reasoning because it is not reality.
Why would I go shopping with a bulldozer? Or hunting with an assault rifle (using the commonly understood definition)?
We aren't talking about hunting. That's the point. We are talking about defense.
If you have a gun designed to kill people in great numbers, you are evil and will use it for that purpose if you can justify it. It is that simple.
No, it is not that simple. There are thousands of gun owners who do not use these weapons for evil. It is the RARE occurance that these weapons are used for evil in this country.. RARE. As in, it hardly ever happens.
If the lunatick can justify using an assault rifle on the masses, certainly these not so crazy can justify using them too.
That statement makes no sense at all. You just equated an insane person with a sane person.
Why do they want these weapons of war if they do not plan to use them that way - once they or the lunaticks can justify doing so?
Defense.
No, I'm showing that both groups are insane by biblical standards.
