Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I think the problem may be the assignment of blame and/or an unwillingness to accept that things are changing.  I mean the only reason that these sorts of rallies won't get off the ground is lack of media coverage right?  Could it possibly be there is no appetite to support these sorts of rallies any longer?  Could it be possible that people are seeing change and are acknowledging something has to be done and perhaps not supporting the status quo is a good way to begin change?  Just spit ballin' here....the one thing I DO know is that if it's going to attract eyeballs, the media outlets WILL cover it.  Guaranteed.  So the question has to be, "will they be able to generate enough eyeballs to make coverage worth while?"  These kids and their supporters are squarely responsible for that :shrug: 

I think that the NRA is also deathly afraid that if they fund and organize a rally of gun nuts, it will end up with someone getting shot and will just become free advertising for gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The General said:

So is it the media’s fault their movement or cause isnt a bigger thing? How many kids want to march or whatever for this?

Hundreds of thousands of kids around the planet organizing something probably deserves some media coverage.

Why do the Pats have to send a plane? 

No, it's not the media's fault. They're trying to improve their bottom line.  

Keep this in mind when you hear people complain about the NRA. Always follow the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

No, it's not the media's fault. They're trying to improve their bottom line.  

Keep this in mind when you hear people complain about the NRA. Always follow the money. 

If a couple hundred thousand kids organize whatever it is this would be it would get plenty of coverage. 

Hannity would probably emcee the thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The General said:

If a couple hundred thousand kids organize whatever it is this would be it would get plenty of coverage. 

Hannity would probably emcee the thing.

Won't happen.  It's terrible optics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Won't happen.  It's terrible optics.  

Hundred thousand kids could march about any topic and it would get wall to wall coverage on every network. Good luck and Godspeed in the fight against gun rights suppression or whatever they are talking about. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

I think that the NRA is also deathly afraid that if they fund and organize a rally of gun nuts, it will end up with someone getting shot and will just become free advertising for gun control.

meh....if what we are lead (by the pro gun guys) to believe is true, this isn't a problem because a majority of America is good with guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pro gun kids will no doubt show up on Hannity and Tucker, if they haven’t already. If they could get even 20,000 other kids to join them in a protest it would be on every news station. As it is the coverage they get now is overdone. They remind me of the Young Americans for Freedom who protested in favor of the Vietnam War. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

What makes someone a "gun nut"

Gun owners who attack shooting victims for seeking gun control.  Gun owners who refuse to discuss  reasonable gun control legislation because of slippery slope arguments that always end with the government taking their guns. Gun owners who ignore irrefutable statistics that more guns=more gun violence in every place in the world.  Gun owners who stockpile guns and ammo after school shootings due to NRA propaganda.  And I’d probably add anyone that owns more than 10 guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The pro gun kids will no doubt show up on Hannity and Tucker, if they haven’t already. If they could get even 20,000 other kids to join them in a protest it would be on every news station. As it is the coverage they get now is overdone. They remind me of the Young Americans for Freedom who protested in favor of the Vietnam War. 

What are they protesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The pro gun kids will no doubt show up on Hannity and Tucker, if they haven’t already. If they could get even 20,000 other kids to join them in a protest it would be on every news station. As it is the coverage they get now is overdone. They remind me of the Young Americans for Freedom who protested in favor of the Vietnam War. 

The year was 1968. We were on recon in a steaming Mekong delta. An overheated private removed his flack jacket, revealing a T-shirt with an ironed-on sporting the MAD slogan "Up with Mini-skirts!". Well, we all had a good laugh, even though I didn't quite understand it. But our momentary lapse of concentration allowed "Charlie" to get the drop on us. I spent the next three years in a POW camp, forced to subsist on a thin stew made of fish, vegetables, prawns, coconut milk, and four kinds of rice. I came close to madness trying to find it here in the States, but they just can't get the spices right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

So KCitons it seems like you have your answer to the question "Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?" The answer is yes and apparently they were. 

It was undermined by Robert Kraft failing to send his plane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the rover said:

Gun owners who attack shooting victims for seeking gun control.  Gun owners who refuse to discuss  reasonable gun control legislation because of slippery slope arguments that always end with the government taking their guns. Gun owners who ignore irrefutable statistics that more guns=more gun violence in every place in the world.  Gun owners who stockpile guns and ammo after school shootings due to NRA propaganda.  And I’d probably add anyone that owns more than 10 guns.

We already discussed owning more than 30 of something makes people idiots. Now 10 makes you a gun nut.

I'd apply the same logic to golf clubs. You only need one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A civilian doesn't need this capability:

The development of the cartridge which eventually became the .223 Remington was intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small caliber high velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62 mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[4] [5] The parameters requested by CONARC were:

.22 caliber

Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]

Rifle weight 6 lbs

Magazine capacity of 20 rounds

Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use

Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards

Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards

Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 M1 Garand)

Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine [5]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

We already discussed owning more than 30 of something makes people idiots. Now 10 makes you a gun nut.

I'd apply the same logic to golf clubs. You only need one. 

That's another really bad comparison.  There's no way you thought that was very cunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's another really bad comparison.  There's no way you thought that was very cunning.

Let's discuss. But, only in the terms of law abiding gun owners. Please treat them the same as you would a law abiding golfer (ie those that don't beat people to death with their 5 iron)

Why would a person need more than one golf club or one gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Let's discuss. But, only in the terms of law abiding gun owners. Please treat them the same as you would a law abiding golfer (ie those that don't beat people to death with their 5 iron)

Why would a person need more than one golf club or one gun?

How can you think this is an appropriate comparison?  You're talking about guns and golf clubs?  Come on!  One is a hobby/sport while the other is meant to kill things.  I'm not even arguing about how many guns a person has,  just pointing out how incredibly bad your argument is.  If you want others to take you serious or agree with you you're going to need to do better than a golf comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Let's discuss. But, only in the terms of law abiding gun owners. Please treat them the same as you would a law abiding golfer (ie those that don't beat people to death with their 5 iron)

Why would a person need more than one golf club or one gun?

If you want to kill someone at close range you need a pistol.  If you want to kill a large person at close range you need a larger caliber pistol.  If you want to kill some one at range, you need a rifle.  If you want to kill someone from a sand trap, you need a different rifle.  If you want to kill someone from the trees, you need a camo rifle.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ditka Butkus said:

A civilian doesn't need this capability:

The development of the cartridge which eventually became the .223 Remington was intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957. A project to create a small caliber high velocity (SCHV) firearm was created. Eugene Stoner of ArmaLite was invited to scale down the AR-10 (7.62 mm) design. Winchester was also invited to participate.[4] [5] The parameters requested by CONARC were:

.22 caliber   - This is misleading. The power comes in part from the casing it is married to. A 22 short is not as deadly as a 22 mag. Same bullet caliber but very different specs.

Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards [4] [5]  - Again, a combination of things

Rifle weight 6 lbs - light weight is important to hunters. Especially if they are hiking into remote areas. 

Magazine capacity of 20 rounds - I'm ok with limiting all guns to 6 rounds.

Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use - fully automatic is already banned. Gun stores are not selling fully automatic rifles without extensive paperwork

Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards - How many other rounds can accomplish this. 

Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards -  See above. Isn't this the same as a helmet. Seems redundant.

Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 M1 Garand) - What's the point of a gun if it doesn't shoot straight. You wouldn't want you car to pull to the left.

Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine [5] - If the purpose of guns are to kill (either man or animal) then, in the case of hunting, we would want a gun that kills swiftly without suffering. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How can you think this is an appropriate comparison?  You're talking about guns and golf clubs?  Come on!  One is a hobby/sport while the other is meant to kill things.  I'm not even arguing about how many guns a person has,  just pointing out how incredibly bad your argument is.  If you want others to take you serious or agree with you you're going to need to do better than a golf comparison. 

Which one is the hobby/sport? 

How many people have you killed? How many animals? How many rounds have you fired in your lifetime that were not at a live target?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Which one is the hobby/sport? 

How many people have you killed? How many animals? How many rounds have you fired in your lifetime that were not at a live target?

Have not killed a human nor ever wanted to.  I have been close to being shot though.  I've killed plenty of animals in my lifetime, too many to count.  Too many rounds to count as well but far, far less than the average gun owner.  I do target shoot with my .22 occasionally but mostly to site it in, not just for fun.  I have gone to a rifle range to shoot guns with friends before and enjoyed it.  Those guns were still made to kill regardless if we used them to target shoot or not.  People made shooting into a hobby and I'm fine with that.  It's still not comparable to golf, at all, not one bit.  You're not doing yourself any favors continuing on with this comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Which one is the hobby/sport? 

I think you have reached the crux of the problem - the 2nd Amendment never anticipated guns as a hobby or sport.

The fact that we treat weapons as a hobby or sport is part of the mindset that we need to change.  Guns are serious business.  They are designed for killing/wounding.

If you want to own a weapon to protect your home - fine.  If you want to own a weapon to hunt animals - fine.  If you want to own a weapon as part of "well-regulated militia" - fine.  But, if you just want to own weapons because its "fun" - then you have stepped out of the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

Most weapons are not appropriate for defending home/person or for hunting animals.  And, guns that would be used within the context of a well-regulated militia - should be "well-regulated" - you can store them, and the ammo you need for those weapons, at the local armory.  You can check those weapons out of the armory to practice for your defense against an over-reaching government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think you have reached the crux of the problem - the 2nd Amendment never anticipated guns as a hobby or sport.

The fact that we treat weapons as a hobby or sport is part of the mindset that we need to change.  Guns are serious business.  They are designed for killing/wounding.

If you want to own a weapon to protect your home - fine.  If you want to own a weapon to hunt animals - fine.  If you want to own a weapon as part of "well-regulated militia" - fine.  But, if you just want to own weapons because its "fun" - then you have stepped out of the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

Most weapons are not appropriate for defending home/person or for hunting animals.  And, guns that would be used within the context of a well-regulated militia - should be "well-regulated" - you can store them, and the ammo you need for those weapons, at the local armory.  You can check those weapons out of the armory to practice for your defense against an over-reaching government.

This is the reason law abiding gun owners are concerned. 

Failure to accept that a large percentage of guns are never used to kill anything. 

So, we are left with your freedom vs my freedom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, KCitons said:

This is the reason law abiding gun owners are concerned. 

Failure to accept that a large percentage of guns are never used to kill anything. 

So, we are left with your freedom vs my freedom. 

I think most people understand that most guns are not used to kill anything - that is actually the problem.  We don't need, and the 2nd Amendment did not contemplate, guns as toys.

Once you get past the notion that killing devices are toys - we can move on to a more meaningful discussion on how to properly safeguard your right to own a gun, and my right to not to live in fear of a society over-run by guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think most people understand that most guns are not used to kill anything - that is actually the problem.  We don't need, and the 2nd Amendment did not contemplate, guns as toys.

Once you get past the notion that killing devices are toys - we can move on to a more meaningful discussion on how to properly safeguard your right to own a gun, and my right to not to live in fear of a society over-run by guns.

I'm not sure I want to protect the rights of others to not live in fear.  Fears can be unreasonable and even imaginary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I'm not sure I want to protect the rights of others to not live in fear.  Fears can be unreasonable and even imaginary.

Just because I am paranoid, does not mean I am wrong... :tinfoilhat:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KCitons said:

We already discussed owning more than 30 of something makes people idiots. Now 10 makes you a gun nut.

I'd apply the same logic to golf clubs. You only need one. 

I'm sure you would.  Because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you really don't understand analogies and nearly all of your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

Here's some help for you.  If you want to draw an analogy to my definition of gun nut, owning 10 sets of golf clubs would make you a golf nut.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

To be clear, my definition of "gun nut" may differ from others, even people who generally agree with my stance on gun control.   I was asked, so I gave my working definition.   

Which, by your definition, makes me a gun nut.  I took no offense to the expression.  It does, however, lump me in with a group with which I am not comfortable being associated.  No big deal, categorical constructs sometimes are over inclusive.  Alternatively, perhaps I belong to that group quite properly but merely lack the self-awareness to realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Which, by your definition, makes me a gun nut.  I took no offense to the expression.  It does, however, lump me in with a group with which I am not comfortable being associated.  No big deal, categorical constructs sometimes are over inclusive.  Alternatively, perhaps I belong to that group quite properly but merely lack the self-awareness to realize that.

I should probably have made an exception to the arbitrary figure of 10 guns for people who have a legitimate business purpose to own more than 10 guns, such as people that own them for the purposes of training others, licensed security, etc.   I wouldn't really consider them gun nuts, as they aren't just buying guns for the sake of owning more guns.  I'm not trying to write legislation here, though.   Someone just asked me what I considered to be a gun nut.  The question is by its very nature very subjective, and the answer likely leads to a Potter Stewart-esque answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I should probably have made an exception to the arbitrary figure of 10 guns for people who have a legitimate business purpose to own more than 10 guns, such as people that own them for the purposes of training others, licensed security, etc.   I wouldn't really consider them gun nuts, as they aren't just buying guns for the sake of owning more guns.  I'm not trying to write legislation here, though.   Someone just asked me what I considered to be a gun nut.  The question is by its very nature very subjective, and the answer likely leads to a Potter Stewart-esque answer.

 

I understood it to be a working definition, not in any way fixed or immutable.  I was, perhaps or perhaps not, the exception which supported the rule. No need to explain.  I took you originally just as I take you now, and neither time could your position have caused a person any substantial offense, unless of course they are a gun nut.

 

My definition would be someone who can nut, or at least chub up, when they are looking at gun porn or when fondling their weapons and accoutrement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I understood it to be a working definition, not in any way fixed or immutable.  I was, perhaps or perhaps not, the exception which supported the rule. No need to explain.  I took you originally just as I take you now, and neither time could your position have caused a person any substantial offense, unless of course they are a gun nut.

 

My definition would be someone who can nut, or at least chub up, when they are looking at gun porn or when fondling their weapons and accoutrement. 

That would definitely be a subset of my defined group.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KCitons said:

Let's discuss. But, only in the terms of law abiding gun owners. Please treat them the same as you would a law abiding golfer (ie those that don't beat people to death with their 5 iron)

Why would a person need more than one golf club or one gun?

because not everyone can hit 8i 175?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think most people understand that most guns are not used to kill anything - that is actually the problem.  We don't need, and the 2nd Amendment did not contemplate, guns as toys.

Once you get past the notion that killing devices are toys - we can move on to a more meaningful discussion on how to properly safeguard your right to own a gun, and my right to not to live in fear of a society over-run by guns.

Why can't you have a meaningful discussion about regulation that doesn't involve the 2nd Amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, -fish- said:

I'm sure you would.  Because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you really don't understand analogies and nearly all of your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

Here's some help for you.  If you want to draw an analogy to my definition of gun nut, owning 10 sets of golf clubs would make you a golf nut.

Sure, but guns aren't sold in a set the way that golf clubs are.

Guns are very similar to golf clubs when it comes to specific use. I wouldn't use a deer rifle to shoot a squirrel, the same way I wouldn't use a putter to drive from the tee box. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own more than 10 guns.  I don't think I'm a nut.  Maybe I am, who knows.  Not gonna go back through the thread to figure out what the conversation was or the point was.  Just sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dedfin said:

I own more than 10 guns.  I don't think I'm a nut.  Maybe I am, who knows.  Not gonna go back through the thread to figure out what the conversation was or the point was.  Just sayin

One of us........One of us.........ONE OF US!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...