18yrs old - too young to own guns - yet 16yrs old - Old enough to stipulate gun policy?? - madness

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I think they're just talking from their hearts and telling us how they feel. We should listen and discuss and figure out of we have any common ground, take action if need be or continue the discussion and look for common ground.

We should always listen to our children. The younger generations become the older generations soon enough. To think that we're smarter than they are, and look who we elect to be our leaders should give you pause to think that we're kinda dumb and have been dumb for a long time.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

The reason you see people dig in on guns is because, as evidenced by Parkland, there are myriad laws that are currently ignored that could stem the tide of violence in the US. But they aren't. Instead, we want to restrict lawful citizens.

It just baffles me how this can even be a suggestion.

So.... request for information here.... which laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting? How would enforcing these laws have stopped the Beltway Sniper and the Pulse Nightclub gunman - and the veteran who killed cops in Dallas at the Black Lives Matter parade two years ago? And which laws were broken in the Parkland High School shooting?

My impression was that all of these (and more) are legally obtained guns and ammunition. Or did they get through some sort of legal loophole? I haven't researched the laws so I really don't know.

My apologies, i thought we were discussing Parkland and the 18 year old shooter.

There is no way to nerf coat the world that I am aware of. We will always be at the mercy of people with dark intentions.

In Parkland, you could go on and on and on. The FBI ignoring reports. The local PD failing to file any reports on dozens of interactions with Cruz. A school that didn't report his expulsion for violent attack. As it pertains to the topic here (i.e., 18 year olds), Cruz and Parkland are a terrible example.

I will point out that killing people en masse does not require guns (Oklahoma City), nor are gun deaths some specially terrible way to die. Its just one of many (and honestly, far better that bludgeoning or being hacked up with an axe) ways to die, and in the end will almost always require nefarious intent (excepting accident).

a reply to: amazing

They've been interviewed. All they want is "change" that's more or less undefined. In that sense, their rage is about as defined as the screaming woman's.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

They've been interviewed. All they want is "change" that's more or less undefined. In that sense, their rage is about as defined as the screaming woman's.

And psychologically, when there is an issue that needs to be addressed or something that happens or an injustice or anything like that, we need two things. To Vent...They're venting. To Discuss...We're discussing.

It's all good.

a reply to: Byrd

That much I will admit.

There's better answers than that - part of it is removing a culture that encourages or promotes the idea that a "man" has to be "manly" and use force to enforce their opinions. Many of the incidents where 4 or more people were injured or killed by a firearm are not by people who were bullied. And many people (I'm thinking of "road rage") with firearms are using them as a tool to deal with personal frustration.

I'm not necessarily advocating "manliness" by going automatically to violence. Though that is an option--just not the first that should be used. There's more to it than that. Peer to peer pressure on those who would be bullies, or who are bullies, can be as good a tactic as a punch to the nose--if not quite as visually impactful. If that method works, I'm all for it. I'm not a big fan of violence as a problem solver--generally it only causes more, though it is a method that can be used.

As for the shooters in the past who've been bullied, or not, I don't know the percentages. It's my understanding that many of them were, indeed, bullied at some point.

I have, unfortunately, no little experience on that side of the ball. I was heavily bullied while in elementary, and jr. high, school. I knew, and only too well remember, the utter, black rage that many in that situation play party to. Wanting to fight back, not being able to because there's never, or seldom is, only one. They rove in packs, or they're simply too big, too strong, too something, to fight. Add to that teacher, or other authority, too apathetic/uncaring to step in--unless you're one of their favorites, which I never was (I generally march to my own drum). Those days leave, and left, an indelible mark that even now, some 40 plus years later still crop up upon occasion.

I had access to guns, throughout that whole period of my life. Yet never, not once, did I even contemplate reaching for one.

Road rage is something we've all experienced in one form or another, I'm sure. What the solution is to that, I've no clue. People do use guns to be the aggressor in those sorts of situations, I'm not going to argue that, but...people have also used firearms to protect themselves in such situations, as well.

I disagree here. In a number of cases, the person doing the shooting at a school or other location is not from that location. At Parkland, the student had been kicked out of school.

It's my understanding that he was, however, while he was there, bullied/picked upon. If you know otherwise, I'm willing to stand corrected.

From what I've observed, people have been asking to move forward on gun control on these newer weapons for quite awhile but NRA and others have rejected any call for control (Brady, Giffords, etc). As I said in another post, back when Whitman shot up the University of Texas, measures were enacted to help prevent this from recurring. But the response in recent time (since at least 2010) is "don't take our guns!" rather than "we agree that something needs to be done in terms of changing access to this newer technology" and helping craft legislation that addresses the issues.

What are these "newer" weapons that you're referencing?

Why do we need yet more legislation? There are already a plethora of gun laws on the books, local, state, and federal in the United States. More laws are not going to solve the issue. Further curtailment of my 2nd amendment right isn't an answer I'm willing to contemplate much past a rather loud "No".

A more proactive stance from the "don't take our guns" (DTOG) crowd about bringing forward legislation to keep guns out of the hands of some people (instead of the absurd (to my thinking) response of "we need gun education and training") would have made this a non-issue quite some time ago. The fact that it now appears that people feel their firearms are more important than our lives and our children's lives mean there's a growing backlash and the measures that may be enacted may be more extreme than if the "DTOG" had stepped up and encouraged what they felt was sensible gun control measures.

Gun training and education would go a long way towards eradicating the fear of them that all too many on the other side of me feel. They are inanimate objects, no scarier than a hammer in and of themselves. So it's hardly what I'd call absurd. The moment I feel that my firearms are more important than a child, you can have 'em. But, my firearms are there to protect the children in my life... If you choose to protect the children in your life with something other than a firearm should that time come, you are certainly welcome to do so.

When it comes to protecting the children in my life, I'll use every single tool at my disposal. That's an appeal to emotion that just doesn't work well, as my firearms will protect children should that need ever come to pass. They certainly will not ever harm a child.

Sensible gun control? Why does that always seem to include me having to give something up?

Tucker Carlson has a good intro/opening statement just now about this subject.


Here is something to read.

Anyway, I digress. Hogg continued, “WE CAN and WE WILL change the world!” With that, he thrust his clenched fist into the air in triumph. Wait… What’s up with the clenched fist? That’s never been a symbol for ANY of the #NeverAgain activities, but — there he was — brandishing the call sign for the anti-Trump resist movement. His classmate, Emma Gonzales, gave her speech rocking a Cuban flag patch on her army green jacket. So, we’ve got two kids advocating against the second amendment, while at the same time repping the Resist movement and Communism. Source:

ETA;

This march, which was supposedly organized BY kids FOR kids, had its paperwork filed by a woman named Jerri Rhodes. She’s the former CFO for Greenpeace, but now works for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. They’re a high power lobbying firm in D.C. You’ll never guess what they specialize in… From their Linkedin page, they focus on, “social and economic justice.”

www.glennbeck.com... m_campaign=20180326GBDaily&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yeah well George Soros tells me that they need to be 21 to buy guns, but only 17 to be able to vote.

17 years old Before you visit your local recruiter, be sure you meet the minimum qualifications for serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Some qualifications are required by all five services: You must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien. You must be at least 17 years old (17-year old applicants require parental consent).

www.military.com...

a reply to: amazing

No. We're not discussing. There isn't much of the opposing point of view being presented. CNN staged their town hall as a 2 minutes of hate with a live scapegoat on the stage for the audience to howl at. There was no reasoned discourse.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The kids are right, we do have to address the problem with people doing school shootings, but we need to do it right. Lots of laws are on the books that should have been enforced, multiple calls about some of the people who did these shootings were ignored by police agencies and the FBI. I do know that a neighbor can be pissed at you and can call in telling cops you are a threat. They have to go and talk to the person and the one who called in. I know a half dozen people who would probably call the cops using the gun thing if their neighbor blew snow into their driveway.

I'm serious, I know a lot of people and some people would call the cops on someone if they disagreed with them.

Maybe there should be someone who a teen can really talk to and trust when they are hurt and angry. There are not many Parents left and many Teachers act like kids. I have seen Teachers actually bully kids that did not stick up for themselves instead of talking with them alone. Not everyone is tough and many kids are emotional with hormonal problems, Family problems and other.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Alien Abduct

For someone who supports the right to own an AR-15, anything I point out will be flawed logic in your mind. I can point out that AR-15's, is without a doubt, chosen as the gun of choice to kill the maximum people in a criminal act. It's only logical sense why a mass killer would choose such a gun.

...But I guess this is flawed logic on my part, right?

Perhaps you could address the points in my post and formulate an actual argument so we might reach an understanding? Try not being so vague and thinking I am without compromise. I am only attempting to hear your rationalized perspective in the matter. So again would you please address the points in my last post?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

The reason you see people dig in on guns is because, as evidenced by Parkland, there are myriad laws that are currently ignored that could stem the tide of violence in the US. But they aren't. Instead, we want to restrict lawful citizens.

It just baffles me how this can even be a suggestion.

So.... request for information here.... which laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting? How would enforcing these laws have stopped the Beltway Sniper and the Pulse Nightclub gunman - and the veteran who killed cops in Dallas at the Black Lives Matter parade two years ago? And which laws were broken in the Parkland High School shooting?

My impression was that all of these (and more) are legally obtained guns and ammunition. Or did they get through some sort of legal loophole? I haven't researched the laws so I really don't know.

My apologies, i thought we were discussing Parkland and the 18 year old shooter.

There is no way to nerf coat the world that I am aware of. We will always be at the mercy of people with dark intentions.

In Parkland, you could go on and on and on. The FBI ignoring reports. The local PD failing to file any reports on dozens of interactions with Cruz. A school that didn't report his expulsion for violent attack. As it pertains to the topic here (i.e., 18 year olds), Cruz and Parkland are a terrible example.

I will point out that killing people en masse does not require guns (Oklahoma City), nor are gun deaths some specially terrible way to die. Its just one of many (and honestly, far better that bludgeoning or being hacked up with an axe) ways to die, and in the end will almost always require nefarious intent (excepting accident).

We are discussing Parkland. Your previous statement was that further restrictions weren't needed because there were laws in place that needed to be enforced. I don't see how any of those (including the failures you mentioned) prevented Cruz from getting a gun to shoot people with - and none of the laws you mentioned would have restricted his access to guns in Florida.

Getting kicked out of school (as far as I know - I can be wrong) is not a case for restricting anyone from purchasing a gun (or am I wrong here)? And as far as I know, short of jail time for a felony, interactions with police do not put you on a "no buy" list for guns or ammunition.

The Florida laws appear to be fairly relaxed for a lot of things, including minors with access to guns There's some mention that Florida is considering tightening gun laws.

I don't see anything in those laws that would prevent another Parkland. So I'm asking for clarification about what laws are not being enforced that would have prevented this or similar incidents.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

This march, which was supposedly organized BY kids FOR kids, had its paperwork filed by a woman named Jerri Rhodes. She’s the former CFO for Greenpeace, but now works for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. They’re a high power lobbying firm in D.C. You’ll never guess what they specialize in… From their Linkedin page, they focus on, “social and economic justice.”

www.glennbeck.com... m_campaign=20180326GBDaily&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck

You might let Glenn Beck know that parades need permits and that minors can't apply for permits.

In addition (as a snowflake, myself) these marches have a full set of staff that work to make sure they're peaceful (I was one of the Guardians of my local march.) We had lawyers monitoring the march, other monitors from other organizations watching the march (and recording anything that seemed to be getting out of hand), we had police, we had parade permits, we had organizations that got the stage and sound system and a lot of other things together.

It's not "hey we'll show up and annoy them by getting a lot of folks together. That's illegal and will get you carted off to jail, muy pronto.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
So, these kids are saying they want the legal age to buy guns raised and a person isn't mature enough at 18 to buy some/all firearms, but then how would a 14-18 yr old be mature enough to understand the complexities of the gun debate other than what they have been told. When I was 16 I watched a lot of football games, and played in a number, but I wouldn't even begin to think that I should make policy in NCAA or NFL.

Even if there were an "assualt weapons" ban, such as during 1999 when Columbine happened, did that stop that incident? How do these people think restricting one (or a few) guns is going to stop this, it's like banning a few models of cars because they have been involved in lots of traffic accidents (they are the most popular models & appeal to risky drivers) while 90% of the accidents were drug/drunk/texting related. Outlawing the car is analogous to banning the gun(s).

Do the marchers not understand this or do they just have deeper ulterior motives?

You are assuming that any of these children even understand what is going on.

They are just innocents being fed talking points, children being used by the left to further a political agenda.

I am willing to bet that the same 30 year old talking points that they now magically know were sitting in pamphlet form waiting to be deployed before the shooting even happened.

The March of Soros.

I hope some time soon that real liberals start kicking the Marxists out of their party.

It's getting old.

So are you saying all children can't have an opinion because they only parrot what they hear? YOU are the one assuming they DON'T KNOW what's going on. Is a kid not allowed to have an opinion? It's not like what they say is going to be made into law, but they do attend these schools and naturally are going to think up ways to prevent it from happening so they can feel safe going to school. You do also know 95% of this forum is adults who don't have their own opinion and just parrot what they hear/read as well right? I guarantee your thoughts aren't even completely your own either and you just parrot what you read and hear and agree with. None of your thoughts are 100% your own, if you say they are you are lying.

You say you played football and watched football but never once had an opinion on the rules, then you are admitting that you couldn't think for yourself either and that you are just doing what you were told. How is that different than what you are claiming about how these kids who are (by your opinion) being fed info?

You somehow think you are the standard for All Human Beings because when I was younger I questioned anything I didn't agree with or understand and still do til this day.

It does look like you have a lot of fans, so I can see how your ego can get in the way of logical reasoning. I think you may be getting high off the attention and not really thinking about what you say because you have fans who will agree with you no matter what is said even it's completely wrong.

I'm just going to assume that you had a bad night and some crappy vodka, but to be honest I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with this post.

I am saying that children are children.

They shouldn't be making policy and it is horrible how the left kills them and then uses them for an agenda.

If you are good with that then great... welcome to being a typical Dem voter. After all, these kids are just the abortion survivors in your world anyways, so I can see how they don't REALLY count unless you can use them to prove a point.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

This march, which was supposedly organized BY kids FOR kids, had its paperwork filed by a woman named Jerri Rhodes. She’s the former CFO for Greenpeace, but now works for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. They’re a high power lobbying firm in D.C. You’ll never guess what they specialize in… From their Linkedin page, they focus on, “social and economic justice.”

www.glennbeck.com... m_campaign=20180326GBDaily&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck

You might let Glenn Beck know that parades need permits and that minors can't apply for permits.

In addition (as a snowflake, myself) these marches have a full set of staff that work to make sure they're peaceful (I was one of the Guardians of my local march.) We had lawyers monitoring the march, other monitors from other organizations watching the march (and recording anything that seemed to be getting out of hand), we had police, we had parade permits, we had organizations that got the stage and sound system and a lot of other things together.

It's not "hey we'll show up and annoy them by getting a lot of folks together. That's illegal and will get you carted off to jail, muy pronto.

Yeah, so they didn't organize it.

you tell them when and where to show up.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: rickymouse
The kids are right, we do have to address the problem with people doing school shootings, but we need to do it right. Lots of laws are on the books that should have been enforced, multiple calls about some of the people who did these shootings were ignored by police agencies and the FBI. I do know that a neighbor can be pissed at you and can call in telling cops you are a threat. They have to go and talk to the person and the one who called in. I know a half dozen people who would probably call the cops using the gun thing if their neighbor blew snow into their driveway.

I'm serious, I know a lot of people and some people would call the cops on someone if they disagreed with them.

Maybe there should be someone who a teen can really talk to and trust when they are hurt and angry. There are not many Parents left and many Teachers act like kids. I have seen Teachers actually bully kids that did not stick up for themselves instead of talking with them alone. Not everyone is tough and many kids are emotional with hormonal problems, Family problems and other.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I see kids concerns ignored here by both their parents and the schools.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

This march, which was supposedly organized BY kids FOR kids, had its paperwork filed by a woman named Jerri Rhodes. She’s the former CFO for Greenpeace, but now works for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. They’re a high power lobbying firm in D.C. You’ll never guess what they specialize in… From their Linkedin page, they focus on, “social and economic justice.”

www.glennbeck.com... m_campaign=20180326GBDaily&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck

You might let Glenn Beck know that parades need permits and that minors can't apply for permits.

In addition (as a snowflake, myself) these marches have a full set of staff that work to make sure they're peaceful (I was one of the Guardians of my local march.) We had lawyers monitoring the march, other monitors from other organizations watching the march (and recording anything that seemed to be getting out of hand), we had police, we had parade permits, we had organizations that got the stage and sound system and a lot of other things together.

It's not "hey we'll show up and annoy them by getting a lot of folks together. That's illegal and will get you carted off to jail, muy pronto.

Yeah, so they didn't organize it.

you tell them when and where to show up.

Actually, ANY time a march is held (a legal one) you get told when and where to show up. This doesn't matter if it's Republicans, Democrats, NRA, Greenpeace, or the Scouts. If you're smart and you expect more than 40 people to show up, you contact people who can help you organize it.

Seriously. These events are a real pain to set up.

originally posted by: Byrd

I don't see anything in those laws that would prevent another Parkland. So I'm asking for clarification about what laws are not being enforced that would have prevented this or similar incidents.

Just shooting from the hip here (so to speak), but I would say the laws against bringing a gun into a gun free zone and murdering people would be at the top of the list. That is, if the laws were followed. That's the thing about laws, they are only really enforced after the fact. No law prevents crime, laws only provide the legal justification for punishment.

If someone is bound and determined to do something, they will find a way whether it's against the law or not. Heck, that's how fortunes are made. You can ban assault weapons or high capacity clips or whatever. But if police have them, if the military has them, if they exist anywhere, people that want them will get them.

------------

Going off on a bit of a tangent, here, maybe off topic and I'm not sure it applies, but read on if you're bored:

I watched a documentary a while back. Basically, a couple of mathematicians claim to have discovered redundant computer code in String Theory. I didn't understand all of it, of course, but the implication was that the mathematical laws that govern the universe seem to be designed to achieve a certain end. Any deviation from that goal is eventually corrected and eliminated. Like a river flowing to the sea, you can throw in a few boulders or trees, but eventually that water gets to the sea.

Humanity would have a similar destiny (or fate). There is something we will become. We don't know what that is. Maybe our destiny is godhood. Maybe our fate is extinction. Along the way, we will have our aberrations. We will have our Michelangelos, we will have our Jefferey Dahlmers, we will have our Genghis Kahns and our Mother Teresas and everything in between. Some help humanity, some hinder, we really don't know which is which because we don't know what we will become, or what will become of us.

All of us that care about the eventual destiny of the human race (and I would say that includes nearly everyone on ATS who cares enough to post an honest opinion) would like to see the best result for humanity. We may not really have a choice, but we try. Now, I can appreciate that some people believe that it's best for humanity is to face the east and bow to the sun at particular times of the day. Some people believe that it's best that humans don't eat pork. I may not agree, but I can't honestly say 100% that they are wrong. I don't know.

What I believe is that the quickest way to our destiny is to have the choice to be human. In the immortal words of Jean Luc Picard, "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we are." Naturally, I would prefer that people didn't use AR-15s to shoot school children. Or drones, or napalm, or machetes. I would prefer that people don't kick dogs. But I know it's going to happen. The human race is going to have its saints and monsters.

I hope the saints win out. I really do. Sometimes I think they are; sometimes ...

But if deep down, we really are the monsters, well, I'd rather see the human race go the way of the dinosaurs than be a race of space-faring automatons that can only think and act at the direction of a central intelligence.

I don't think the correct path is to try to prevent the means to commit crimes. Human ingenuity always wins that battle. We need to find a way to prevent the desire to commit crimes. If we can't do that, then no matter what else we do, we lose.

I see many here ignoring our children reminds me of people that say they should be seen and not heard. Our kids deserve the ability to attend school without having to worry about dying. They also need to be heard as their fears are real. Great thing about society is we can hear opinions and decide on courses of action. For one we keep talking about tougher background checks but never happens. The other thing is I think you need to he a gun safety course Defoe you can buy a gun. To many own firearms with no clue the responsibility that comes with it. We have in the news all the time some kid getting hold of parents guns.

As a parent I own guns but my kids never Havre access unless I'm there thanks to fingerprint locks on gun safe. My son is 14 and I have taught him how to shoot clean and above all respect the damage it can do. Many gun deaths are caused because people don't treat the firearm with the level of responsibility it deserves.

originally posted by: craterman
The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two statements above, separated by a comma. If we were actually invaded, everyone owning a gun and useful with a gun can be called upon to defend the country. When they are called upon to do so, a well regulated malitia is the method the founders are hopeful the people would be prepared for. And yes, all that oppose the ability to defend oneself, state and country are either useful idiots and enemies or just enemies. There is only one group that ever wants to take away the ability of self defense, and they are ENEMIES. Either purposeful or just plain idiots.

a reply to: WeRpeons

So called “tools” now days.

Good post.

Too young to own guns, young enough to get massacred by guns. Yes, old enough to discuss gun policy. It's called freedom of speech. They are too young to vote through.

So I really don't see what the problem is.