School walkout

This event is probably a good chance for candidates to also consider how they identify themselves as they prepare to be officer candidates and ultimately officers in the military. Our officer corps is apolitical. This doesn't mean that we are not informed or that we don't have opinions but it does mean we express them in light of obligations to elected government. Some of this is regulatory and some of it is good common sense judgement. As an officer I may or may not vote for a candidate but I don't keep mugs or stickers or anything in my workplace that reflects my personal political views. A candidate interested in a military career may just want to ask would my involvement in any political event now cause others to perceive that participation as reflecting my affiliation with the uniformed services.
 
You are not helping the case of those who want to cling to their guns while children die.
While I know it is all the rage these days, can we refrain from assuming that people don't care about their friends, family, and countrymen's deaths just because we disagree on political policy? The proper balance and extent of civil rights are an immensely complicated topic, and assuming you understand a poster's motivation on the topic from a few internet posts is giving more credit to your mind reading abilities than you probably should.
 
While I know it is all the rage these days, can we refrain from assuming that people don't care about their friends, family, and countrymen's deaths just because we disagree on political policy?

Or we can say exactly what people are supporting. When you opposed common sense regulations the rest of the world has already figured out, you are saying that your guns are worth more than the lives of children.
 
"exertion"? It requires exertion to make it through these lame expositions on constitutional law. From both sides.

I think you mean "assertion". And stop using the word "stupid", even if you spell it right.

You aren't helping the case of those of us who don't take a maximalist interpretation on the 2nd Amendment.

Attack spelling instead of responding to the point. You are not helping the case of those who want to cling to their guns while children die.

And for the record, I am typing on a phone. So yes I will make the occasional spelling error.
I really hate when you are trying to make a point, regardless of the discussion and which side you take and your opponent instead of critically responding to your point, attacks you on your grammar or spellling as if it invalidates your point of view. Many times you are writing from a smartphone and it's too much of a pain to fix your errors or in this case of this forum, spellcheck isnt included. On Facebook, I will usually catch mistakes after people respond to my posts to which i then edit my post. On this forum, you can only edit your post for a short period of time. In any case, a person's point isnt diminished by grammar or spelling mistakes. On Quora another site where people ask and respond to questions, they have the ability for anyone who reads you post to make corrections. Quora will then send you an email asking if you would like to make the corrections. Its usually the same people making the corrections. Its like having my own personal editing team
 
You are not helping the case of those who want to cling to their guns while children die.
While I know it is all the rage these days, can we refrain from assuming that people don't care about their friends, family, and countrymen's deaths just because we disagree on political policy? The proper balance and extent of civil rights are an immensely complicated topic, and assuming you understand a poster's motivation on the topic from a few internet posts is giving more credit to your mind reading abilities than you probably should.
It amazes me that people stop friending people on facebook or even stop talking to friends or family because someone voted for Trump or Hilary. If I am friends with someone, I could care less what their political views are. They are either a good person or not. Who they vote for unless its a known nazi or communist makes no difference to me. I dont impose my views on anyone and I expect the same. Unfortuantely we live in a world today where having one opinoin or another is now connected with being a good or bad person. I hope this isnt considered a political comment. As a famous American once said, "Can't we all just get along"
 
What's the message behind "I want to show my unwavering support for.... but not if it'll impact me negatively."

It's a realistic concern, but it's interesting.

We walked out once, to support our teachers and their push for a pay raise. There was ZERO risk.
 
Most of which are already in place. I just listened to Zero Hour recounting the last hour before Columbine. At no point did Clebold and Harris stop to think about any of the 19 gun laws they were going to violate. When you intend to kill children, no gun law will stop you.

Then why are there no mass shootings in Japan, where access to weapons is strictly regulated? Or in many other first world countries. Your argument is fallacious.
 
Our officer corps is apolitical.
See this is what some people (especially on this site) like to claim, but ultimately I’d say that, for better or worse, the military is probably no less political than any civilian business. Honestly, I see political bumper stickers on base all the time. Heck, one of the people I work with in my squadron has a “Make American Great Again” mug with a picture of Trump on the side of it that sits on his desk. Anyway that’s just what I’ve seen, obviously won’t be the case for everyone in the service.

And to those candidates who feel that ditching class is a good way to show support for gun control, perhaps you should contact your admissions officers at your respective academies and let them know of your plans. I’m sure they’d be delighted to know that you’re putting politics over your education. Most of you aren’t even old enough to vote yet. The taxpayers (or parents for you private school kids) are paying for your education. Get your priorities straight.
 
What's the message behind "I want to show my unwavering support for.... but not if it'll impact me negatively."

It's a realistic concern, but it's interesting.

We walked out once, to support our teachers and their push for a pay raise. There was ZERO risk.
My interest in maintaining my appointment outweighs my interest in politics, in short. I wanted to know of the risk of showig my support and some people say it’s very risky while others say not at all. If it has any chance at affecting my future, I don’t want to take part. Based on the answers I’ve gotten my decision is made.
 
Most of which are already in place. I just listened to Zero Hour recounting the last hour before Columbine. At no point did Clebold and Harris stop to think about any of the 19 gun laws they were going to violate. When you intend to kill children, no gun law will stop you.

Then why are there no mass shootings in Japan, where access to weapons is strictly regulated? Or in many other first world countries. Your argument is fallacious.

Then why are there no mass shootings in Switzerland, where access to weapons is almost completely unregulated, and 24.45% of the population are armed.

You also fail to ignore that gun control statistics in foreign countries that have used blanket bans (read: Great Britain and Australia) were already experiencing a sharp decrease in firearm related homicide rates PRIOR to the buyback programs. Similarly, American gun related homicides per capita have decreased over the past 35 years. Don't believe me? Here's a WaPo story. I'm pretty certain that you would trust this MSM source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ited-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.88f1d4d91a43

Please let me know when people stop killing each other in the south side of Chicago (heavy gun "control" and my dad is from there) and that Korean store owners can't defend themselves during the next outburst of racial violence (my maternal grandparent's laundromat was destroyed by looters as the police were overwhelmed).
 
Nemo567 said:
Or you can realise that the constitution is not clear and the individual right to bear arms was not recognized until 2009. And since then every assault weapons ban that has been challenged has been upheld as constitutional. It is supid to suggest that someone is violating their oath by supporting gun control.

Nemo567 said:
He clearly did, and it is a stupid exertion to make. Students are protesting for common sense measures that any 1st world country should implement.

Nemo567 said:
Unless you know, they couldn't have obtained the guns in the first place.
For some reason we are constantly told we just have to live with multiple mass shootings each year. We are the only first world country with this problem, it's pretty clear what the proble.p is.
But who am I kidding, if someone can murder 20 first graders and nothing changes I doubt a student protest will make much of a difference.

Nemo567 said:
Attack spelling instead of responding to the point. You are not helping the case of those who want to cling to their guns while children die.
And for the record, I am typing on a phone. So yes I will make the occasional spelling error.

Nemo567 said:
Or we can say exactly what people are supporting. When you opposed common sense regulations the rest of the world has already figured out, you are saying that your guns are worth more than the lives of children.

I just had to put all those together in one post.
 
Or we can say exactly what people are supporting. When you opposed common sense regulations the rest of the world has already figured out, you are saying that your guns are worth more than the lives of children.

No. I am opposing restrictions on civil rights that would not be effective at reducing violent crime. Bump stocks do what a finger or belt loop already can do. Banning them really won't do much, but the bills banning them can be stretched dangerously far due to loose definitions. A new "assault weapons ban" likely won't do much, as the previous one had no measurable effect. Universal background checks can make it illegal to hand a gun to a friend, but most criminals who use guns get them via straw purchases, from associates, or other illegal means. About the only "common sense" regulations are Gun Violence Restraining Orders, which are good in theory, but usually make a mockery of Constitutional due process requirements.
If, after doing quite a bit of research on the topic, I thought any of these were actually "common sense" in that they would work without imprisoning decent people, I would support them.
I've seen the effects of an active shooter on victims' families and friends. It hurts deeply, and I don't want people hurt like that. I just don't see the realistic benefits of most of the proposed laws you claim are "common sense."
 
Assault Weapon = "Any selective-fire rifle capable of chambering a medium-power cartridge"
The term "Assault Weapon" comes from the WWII German Sturmgewehr 44 (which translates literally into "Storm Rifle 44", but is usually translated into "Assault Rifle 44".
Sturmgewehr
was meant to mean a medium-powered rifle for use by storm troops in the assault of an objective.
These "assault weapons" have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act in 1934.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 created a litany of other rules for the sale and transfer of firearms in general (not just so-called "Assault Weapons").
In 1986, there was a revision to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the Firearm Owners Protection Act) which banned the manufacture and importation of selective-fire firearms, for sale to the public.
After 1986, no civilian could buy a newly-manufactured "machine gun". Existing "machine guns" could be bought and sold, as long as civilians complied with the laws in place since the National Firearms Act (from 1934).
What this did, was make the existing "machine guns" raise in value from $1,000 to $20,000 - $30,000, or more, which translates into billions of dollars.
Some people actually became millionaires, overnight. Your "average Joe" today, does not have the means with which to buy one of these, which effectively takes them off the market.

Because the police and military can still get them (and they continued making them for the police and military after 1986), they get stolen.
The people who steal them are what we call "criminals".
You can write all the laws you want, but there will still be criminals who won't follow them.

In this Great Age of the Anti Gun crowd, an "assault weapon"is now being identified as "any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip".
Some of the other "scary" features are muzzle devices (brakes or flash hiders) and black plastic.
There are a ton of politicians trying to pass laws right now, who don't even know how firearms actually work. They just know that firearms are "bad".
They use terms like "gun violence", but they never say that someone mowed down by a drunk driver was a victim of "car violence".
They don't, because people would say "you're stupid!"
 
Then why are there no mass shootings in Switzerland, where access to weapons is almost completely unregulated...

Do you even know anything about Swiss Law or Swiss Culture? I would trade their "unregulated" gun laws for our heavily regulated gun laws and gun culture in a heartbeat. Trust me. You would not.

$100 says your “fact” was gleaned from Reddit or Facebook or InfoWars or somesuch other “source”. This is a case in point of how a completely bogus statement somehow becomes a “fact”, metastasizes throughout the internet and becomes part of the national political discussion.

It’s not unlike the Letter from the USAF English Department concerning Mustache March. Remember that beauty?
 
Assault Weapon = "Any selective-fire rifle capable of chambering a medium-power cartridge"
The term "Assault Weapon" comes from the WWII German Sturmgewehr 44 (which translates literally into "Storm Rifle 44", but is usually translated into "Assault Rifle 44".
Sturmgewehr
was meant to mean a medium-powered rifle for use by storm troops in the assault of an objective.
These "assault weapons" have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act in 1934.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 created a litany of other rules for the sale and transfer of firearms in general (not just so-called "Assault Weapons").
In 1986, there was a revision to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the Firearm Owners Protection Act) which banned the manufacture and importation of selective-fire firearms, for sale to the public.
After 1986, no civilian could buy a newly-manufactured "machine gun". Existing "machine guns" could be bought and sold, as long as civilians complied with the laws in place since the National Firearms Act (from 1934).
What this did, was make the existing "machine guns" raise in value from $1,000 to $20,000 - $30,000, or more, which translates into billions of dollars.
Some people actually became millionaires, overnight. Your "average Joe" today, does not have the means with which to buy one of these, which effectively takes them off the market.

Because the police and military can still get them (and they continued making them for the police and military after 1986), they get stolen.
The people who steal them are what we call "criminals".
You can write all the laws you want, but there will still be criminals who won't follow them.

In this Great Age of the Anti Gun crowd, an "assault weapon"is now being identified as "any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip".
Some of the other "scary" features are muzzle devices (brakes or flash hiders) and black plastic.
There are a ton of politicians trying to pass laws right now, who don't even know how firearms actually work. They just know that firearms are "bad".
They use terms like "gun violence", but they never say that someone mowed down by a drunk driver was a victim of "car violence".
They don't, because people would say "you're stupid!"

I guess the Ruger Mini 14 that I just used to hunt coyotes on the farm doesn’t qualify because it doesn’t have a pistol grip...

I also own the following “assault rifles”...a Springfield “trapdoor” breech loader used by Union troops to assault their CSA foes, a beautiful M1 Garand used by American troops to assault the enemy in Europe, the Pacific and Korea and a 1943 Mosin Nagant used by Soviet troops to assault the Nazis that had invaded their country...
 
Do you even know anything about Swiss Law or Swiss Culture? I would trade their "unregulated" gun laws for our heavily regulated gun laws and gun culture in a heartbeat. Trust me. You would not.

$100 says your “fact” was gleaned from Reddit or Facebook or InfoWars or somesuch other “source”. This is a case in point of how a completely bogus statement somehow becomes a “fact”, metastasizes throughout the internet and becomes part of the national political discussion.

It’s not unlike the Letter from the USAF English Department concerning Mustache March. Remember that beauty?

As interesting as debating gun control with adults might be, the take home point here is that the kids have had #enough. good for them for exercising their first amendment rights and trying to positively effect change. It doesn’t matter to them what you think. They think those defending the NRA are not defending them. And many of them will vote in November. And those that can’t will vote in 2020
 
Back
Top