Heros, Guns and Free Speech

Takes REAL big men to criticize traumatized kids. No shame whatsoever. In fact=despicable.

 

First off, anyone that makes himself a public icon is fair game for citizism. Period. I'm not going to stand by and let misinformation be spread just because a person survived a tragedy and only a few months from being a legal adult. Surviving a mass shooting doesn't make you an expert on gun laws anymore than surviving a car wreck makes you an expert in traffic laws. Second, if these survivors (as some already doing) were advocating for armed teachers and allowing 18 year olds to buy handguns, you or the people that generally align with your idealogy will be criticizing them as well.

 

I think each school should have a THOROUGHLY VETTED officer of the law (armed) stationed at the main entrance, while all other entrances remain locked. Those kids aren't "public icons." They are frightened children that want to make some changes in the way guns are dealt with after having to see classmates--kids that had the rest of their lives to lead--slaughtered for ---what? It's bad enough that grown adults the world over are killing each other in all the usual ways---now it's becoming normal for schools nationwide to have these incidents. Do not arm teachers--that would turn out badly, IMO.
What is odd to me, is how some folks think that there would be a chance in hell to withstand our military with pistols and rifles.

 

Couldn't think of a better term. How about public figures. Also aren't teachers thoroughly vetted also? Are you saying they'll let any Jim Bob off the streets take up teaching vulnerable children?

One of the first red flags to a bad idea is when it's promoted by emotion. As bad as the tragedy was and don't wish the incident on anyone, that still does not mean that they are anymore of an expert on gun laws than someone who hasn't gone through the incident. If we're going to play the "because they went through a tragedy it automatically makes their opinion right" game then I can list several mass shooting survivors, including some from the recent shooting, who advocate for more gun rights. Does that mean that they are right?

That wasn't my original point but since you want to go there, why is it a bad idea to let staff who want to be armed be trained and able to do so?

I'll never get this argument. On one hand people say that civilian rifles such as the AR15 is a weapon of war and thus too dangerous for civilian use while on the other hand say that there's no way for a civilian population to be able to take on such a mechinized force as the US military with the same rifles you want banned or restricted. If anything, this argument is even more reason why we should have access to such rifles and even more things more things more readily available.

BTW the whole premise is faulty on its face. For one we lost one war and still fighting another one where our enemy is barely any more armed than the average gun owner. Granted, in both cases the military wasn't allowed to go full throttle on the enemy but that brings up a second point. Most service members and police are reluctant to war againt their own countrymen. Not only that but the large majority of them are conservative at the very least.

 

I thought it was clear he was referring to people who have called the Parkland students Nazis, who poked fun of David Hogg's college rejections as if that has anything to do with it, who poked fun of Emma Gonzalez's sexual orientation as if that has anything to do with it, who threatened to ram a hot poker up David Hogg's ass as if threatening violent sexual assault is a reasonable response to a gun control argument made by a gun violence survivor

No one is offended by a counter argument. Thats clearly not the issue here

 

It would be clear had someone just two posts above say that criticizing them is hitting below the belt.

 

Id take the bitch more seriously if she put some big girl panties on and marched 17miles to honor the victims..
Really ...

 

The pro NRA teens who say it does not matter we need guns are heros to the same people. It's not their age it's that they are getting results.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

If a news channel covers them it's because they get ratings. Same reason as why they have cute puppies. If gun people wanted to make an impact they would not talk about it. But every angry view is still a view and every mean video just keeps the idea fresh in people's minds.

These same channels have had gun people but they don't have much to say so they don't get much air time. Their argument is simple "I don't have to tell you why".

 

Or sometimes because their dad works for the FBI and mom for msm. And it fits a particular adgenda perfectly.
And while not saying much, at least firearms advocates don't demand giving up personal freedoms.