DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus March for our lives, 2018...

Dude- pinko leftist commie?

I had no idea that

was a Browns fan.

Unbelievable.

I just don't want someone who eats Tide Pods telling me how I should live my life.

And yet nobody here has been able to shut you up.
Nobody here has even tried.
What has been done, however... is debate and disagreement. So, you know- until 4 liberals hold down your arms and legs while a 5th stuffs a rag in your mouth, you argument holds about as much water as a colander.

Argument: lost.

Hey Clem...........do you think it would be possible for a few of us to intelligently discuss this issue?

I'm thinking probably not. However, I have a few points I would really like to make. The problem I have is that some of my points fall on one side and some of my other points fall on the other side.

I think that is the way many Americans view things, but it doesn't seem to work on this forum.

So, do you think we can intelligently discuss the issue w/out taking sides on this forum, or is it a hopeless cause?

Hopeless is probably being a bit too optimistic.

I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say though.

Thanks. That is one from your "side." Now, if Clem is into it.........I'll go forward.

I don't have any answers. I just want to discuss it intelligently and learn.

I guess there's really only one way to find out.
What's been on your mind?

Hmmmm..........not a good vibe, but I'll trot this out there:

--I think there should be stronger gun control regulations/laws.

--Not sure why any individual needs assault rifles?

--I do not think guns are why there is so much mass violence in the world.

--I am not a big gun guy at all, but I never understood how people believe that taking guns away will stop the gun problem. Guns will always be available and why would we only want people who purchase them illegally acquire them?

--I think that we have a real problem w/many of our youths and that is being ignored. I think that this is the key to my discussion and if you and others want to discuss it, I will go forth w/it. If y'all want to ignore it or dismiss it, then the discussion will be over.

--I am going to tell you...........if you allow me to go forward w/the last point [which is by far the most important point] I am going to make almost all of you very uncomfortable.

Thus, what do y'all want? Plausible answers? Or let's keep pretending that the same old discussions are actually going to fix the true problems in school shootings?

depends. if we're talking age requirements and tougher screening, then yea.



this is a tricky topic. nobody "needs" a rifle....but if we're going on the constitution, then in order to fight a tyrannical government, at the very least, a military style weapon is "needed".

but in general, i think its a mentality thing when it comes to military style weapons. for the sake of not triggering the gun nuts on the board, ill stick to military style instead of "assault" rifle.



it isn't, but we can't deny that some feel empowered by owning/having a gun in their hands.



people have seen gun regulations work around the world. certain people try to play with stats and make the claim that it hasn't worked, or talk about gun ownership in certain countries without understanding the situation in its entirety.

for example, people go "well switzerland has comparable gun ownership rates", yet either don't know, or choose to ignore the fact that switzerland still has very strict gun control measures that the same pro-gun americans would consider unconstitutional.



like what? bullying?



we keep having the same discussions because these talks rarely go anywhere. so many ideas have been brought up, torn down, explained, etc, that there really isn't any new/original ideas on how to fix it.

on top of that, even if there was a consensus, we would then have to convince the majority of politicians to implement that. and if those ideas aren't coming from lobbying groups who put money in campaign accounts...well...good luck.

Post from earlier.

That was a very good post. Thanks.

I am not quite ready to reply yet. Hopefully, I will get a few more intelligent [like yours] replies to my points/questions.

Well.................so much for my line of thinking....LOL

Hey Swish.............I'm checking out for the night......but ignore Vambo. He's trouble. Don't get suspended, bro.

Cmon man. That first picture is clearly photoshopped and she's of Cuban descent. Are you that desperate to discredit and dehumanize a shooting victim to advance your view?

Parkland Student Defends NRA After Being Left Out of Time Magazine Cover

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/23/ky...econd-amendment


A Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School junior said Friday he believes he wasn't featured on a recent TIME Magazine cover with fellow activist classmates because he supports the Second Amendment.

Kyle Kashuv won't be attending a "March For Our Lives" rally in the nation's capital this weekend and will instead be meeting with legislators.

"In the March itself, the March's website, [it's] listed how they want to ban AR-15s and I don't agree with that," he said, citing a link to a petition to "ban the sale of assault weapons" used in recent mass shootings in America.

"It's clear that the people on the [TIME] cover are pushing for gun reform and they're pushing that they don't want to see weapons of war on the streets," Kashuv said.

The article stated that the students in Parkland, Florida "painted the NRA and their allies as the mortal enemies," something Kashuv doesn't agree with.

"There were so many levels [in which] the government failed: the police force failed, the FBI failed. And simply representing this as the NRA issue is so counter-productive because we could be doing real legislation to make sure this won't happen again," he said.

"Here we are pointing a finger at the NRA, which practically hasn't done anything," he added.

Kashuv was also asked what he thinks needs to be done to make schools safer, to which he answered that the issue is not about citizens possessing weapons.

"[The issue] is the agencies not referring [to] past convictions, not referring [to] dishonorable discharge or a mental health issue or a domestic assault charge," he said.

Quite a lot to unpack. Nice list of points. We're not really so very far apart here.

But first- a bit of houskeeping:


You assumed a tone that wasn't there.
If spoken, my tone would best be described as "matter-of-fact."
If you go back and read the post again with that tone in mind, it sounds very different.

With that out of the way.... on to the good stuff.


_____________________________________________





I would like to see exactly what regs/laws are being proposed. and judge them on their specific merits. Not opposed to the idea, basically because I believe regulation is in no way the same as confiscation. There are laws and regs governing a good deal of everyday life, and they mostly exist 'for the common good.' Some are an inconvenience for me, but I put up with them because I can see the general benefit to all.

ex: I'd like to be able to drive on I 75 at 110 if I'm late for a gig, but that would endanger others around me. I relinquish that right so that I can be safe 2 days later on I 75 when I'm driving with me wife and someone else is running late for work.

I see guns as no different. They are objects which (because of their lethality) require a certain extra level of responsibility. I have no issue with guidelines being in place. We already have that with existing laws, but law is fluid and subject to evolving interpretation. In the public arena of ideas, the status quo is being challenged, which is exactly how a democracy should work. If in the end, it is determined that some changes should be made, I'm actually ok with that.

And here's why: I'm a non-gun owner who isn't anti-2A.

So reg changes won't effect me at all... unless at some time down the road I decide to buy a firearm. At that time, the regs will force me to meet certain standards. No problem there, either.



I certainly don't need one.
And I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who'd need one, either. The way we live our lives prompts us to prioritize other things above ownership of military-grade weaponry. I would imagine that most folks who would own an AR-type gun would see military-style conflict as real possibility in their lives. Otherwise, why own one?



Neither do I.
Guns are just the tool. Tsarneyev brothers used a bomb at the Boston Marathon. That jackwad in Charlottesville drove his car into a crowd of people.

Hey, Vers.... I'm just going to cut to the chase here.


This is the real discussion you've been wanting to have.
I've been intrigued to know your views since you first started hinting at this, a few moths ago.

It's probably the root discussion that we should have been having all along. So many of these PP discussions seem to flow from it.

So please....
let's start that talk, and see where it goes.
Enough stalling and teasing.
Let's solve some problems (or at least try).

I'm not the one who put her on the stage and opened her up for the criticism.

You are the one posting personal attacks via images created by the alt-right. Glad to see you double downed on your idiotic statement.

Photoshopping someones head into a picture isn't criticism. Please consult a dictionary for the proper word. I think you're looking for defamation.

Also, how does one criticize (I'm using your term here) where someones ancestry is from without it being racist or close to it? I don't throw that charge around lightly. I'm genuinely concerned. If we are going to allow this sort of dialog on dawgtalkers , maybe it's time for me to find another venue of conversation (browns or otherwise). I've lurked on this thread for a while but this post sincerely bothered me.

That's why the media made these poor kids political puppets.

Who's head was photo shopped? I did not photo shop or was aware of them being photo shopped. But I will take them down.




So if someone said so and so is from China racist comment?

Vambo is what Vambo is.

Thanks for replacing the photos Vambo.



No. But that's not what your image said. Your image did not say Emma Gonzalez was from Cuba. Your image quote drew parallels from her country of origin intended to question her patriotism or support of the US. It would have taken you all of a few seconds to do some research to find that out. Instead you either intentionally misrepresented her to try and advance your views, or you made an assumption that could have been resolved with a very short Google search (it took me under 20 seconds.) You know what they say about assumptions, right?

Look, you're pro 2A, I get that. And I like reading often more than posting on here. But this whole attacking Emma or Hoggs or any of these kids via misrepresentation or defamation amounts to ad hominem. It's not inviting criticism. It means you don't have a better argument.

VIDEO: Elementary school installs bulletproof shelters ... - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/elementar...srooms-53409282

So now members here have changed the terms form assault rifles to Military Style Weapons....that just took an even broader brush to what the left wants to restrict.

Military style weapons now included the ever popular Glock series pistol, the Beretta 92 series, the Sig Sauer p226 and the p320, countless brands of 1911s, the venerable 12 gauge shotgun that wise uncle Joe told us was all we needed, the Remington 700 bolt action rifle series (possible the most popular hunting rifle in the US). All of these weapons are or have been staples of the US military in recent years and all have spots in civilian safes across the US. Terminology matters. Even the standard fixed blade and folding blade hunting knife would be a Military style weapon.

I would rather you use the term Assault Weapon in a wrong manner then open up the Military style weapon can of worms. Maybe it was a Freudian Slip.....

Well, if you want to play on the big boy stage then put on your adult pants and accept that you will receive heat for it...

I have no problem with kids not wanting to get shot.. what I do have a problem with is that there are about 20 other ways that these kids and their peers are more likely to die than being shot at school. So stop calling this a march for our lives and start calling it what it is, a gun control rally. If they want to march for their lives and actually save more kids... then march to raise the driving age to 18... march to have your parents more involved in your social media accounts to see who is bullying each other... march to make kids sit with the "friendless" kids who go through high school with no friends... march to make alcohol harder to get for teens... march for mandatory 10:00 pm curfews...

In 2015, 33 kids died in school shootings.. at least 5 died playing HS football alone.. march to ban high school contact sports... there were also over 2,000 suicides of high school age kids that year...

11 teens die EVERY DAY from texting while driving...

So let them go ahead and protest, maybe they can vote out all of these republicans and NRA supporters and get these "assault rifles" made illegal.. that might make them .01% safer... but if they REALLY want to be safer, then they need to protest to give up stuff they LOVE to do.. because that's what is killing them.

Even if all of their protests are successful, they will still be dying at pretty much the same rate.. one at a time in isolated incidences generally caused by their own recklessness.... there just won't be these horrific shootings which make for such explosive news stories... and they won't have that evil villain to fixate on any more...

Best post in this entire thread!!

Pretty sure the GOP and NRA helped make them political activists. It's the media's job to cover their actions. You disagree so you think the media is fake and wrong. Too bad for you all in Nov. Enjoy.

you just did the same crap the people trashing the kids are doing

what about what about what about.

stop comparing accidental deaths like HS football accidents to INTENTIONAL murders.

cant even take your post seriously pulling that nonsense. fallacies out the ass.

There's a few things I think you failed to consider.

These are kids. They work more on emotions than anything else. They witnessed people in their own schools get shot and killed. They witnessed and lived through a type of trauma many of the blow hards on this thread can't even really imagine. So they're acting out of the instincts to survive. On pure emotions.

I don't believe nor should we expect them to act like a rational adult in their thinking process or reactions to such a situation. I'm not even sure many of the people posting on this very thread would react the way they are towards these kids if it were one of their own children whose funeral they had to attend after such a shooting.

It's easy to talk about the beliefs and reactions of others when you've never walked a mile in their shoes.

Maybe at first, but look at their faces - they are eating this attention up. Cant blame them they are kids, but the lights and glamour and whispers in their ears. They are being done a disservice by adults using them to push an agenda, plain and simple. They are showing them the lights, while they whisper what to say in their ears'.

You can even see enjoyment in their faces when they are on tv, and that's pretty sad.

This is why decent people don't use children to promote their own agenda.

I believe you are looking for a motive that isn't there. I think you're trying to use kids that are already victims as even more victims. To disagree with their message is one thing. To attack the character of a bunch of high school kids who had to witness their friends die in front of them is disgusting.

Stop and think for just a minute. If you felt you had a message you wanted to get across... A movement to change things. It wouldn't make you happy to get that message out to millions across this country? You wouldn't see that as a positive?

Please, for the love of God, quit attacking a bunch of kids. You have no idea what they just lived through. You have no idea what is running through their minds.

See, I'm a strong second amendment supporter. And when I read people like you and others attacking these kids I understand just how much damage you're doing to undermine what you claim to stand for. Rational thinking people become sickened by seeing people attacking the surviving victims of mass school shootings.

People like you are hurting our side, not helping it.

So people who were just through traumatic events be the ones making decisions on others lives?

Why would you let irrationally thinking people make life changing decisions?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to give them time to heal get consoling before being used by people to advance their own agendas? You know as soon as the next thing that comes up that will further their agendas they will drop these kids and forget them, what will that do to these kids?

give them time to heal?

translation: make them sit around and do nothing while nothing gets done.

this is helping them heal, but going out there and protesting/marching for something they believe in order to prevent this from happening over and over again.

Once again, I do not think its about the movement anymore, more about fame and possible fortune. The Hogg kid is constantly posting about freebies from Kind brand foods etc., thanking for the "endorsements". They are constantly on TV, laughing giggling, etc. Its what THEY are portraying.

Exactly why they are being used. You cant say one thing to refute anything without some bleeding heart accusing you of "attacking" them. You realize that is the entire point they are front and center right? Its a political ploy. Nothing More. But alas, please show me where I am "attacking" them? I said they look to be enjoying themselves, that's not an attack, far from it. And when you are accepting "endorsements" after kids lost their lives, maybe you should be questioned.

Once again, show me where I attacked them.

Neither do you, now do you? I am basing my opinion by what I am seeing - you wouldn't be trying to limit someone's first amendment rights now would you? Because that is exactly what you are doing by trying to silence those with different opinions.

Rational thinking people realize that this is nothing more than a ploy. Sponsored and paid for by the left, to take away rights.

Please, proceed to describe "people like me".

Its easy to never lose, when you sit on the sideline and play both sides. Must be nice for you.

NONE of them have made any decisions about your life. Since you seem insistent on this theme, what decision have they made about your life?

I can tell you, none. They are not making life changing decisions. You are just making that crap up.

What they're doing is expressing their opinions and views about a topic. They are exercising their right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

You do realize the Constitution has more amendments than the second one right? And all are equally as important. Don't expect people to try to stand for the amendment that means the most to you if you plan to ignore the amendments that mean the most to them.

People like you?

That's simple. People that rather than actually discuss the topic of gun control based on the merit of their beliefs, are so vile they attack the survivors of mass shootings standing for what they believe in. And children at that.

People like you......

So the best things to do to help people after traumatic events is "protesting/marching for something they believe in order to prevent this from happening over and over again. " a new medical break through.