Study says teenagers made up just 10 percent of March for Our Lives crowd

[Las Vegas]

Ag, why don't you just come around?  You're on the side of reality. 

No need to make a pledge to violence.  No need to do anything but what you're doing -- only now you refuse to accept bullshit that can't be shown.  That's all.

[Kazan]

Why?

The real question is why are we asking permission to exercise our rights? Why does the left get to decide what they are OK with? Last time I checked the constitution restricts the government not the people.

[Primemuscle]

Not her. She's too hyper. It's like she's on speed or something.

[Primemuscle]

The real question is why are we asking permission to exercise our rights? Why does the left get to decide what they are OK with? Last time I checked the constitution restricts the government not the people.

The left gets to decide what they are okay with, they don't get to decide what the right is okay with.

I don't know where you checked what the constitution does out, but you are wrong. It is a myth that the Constitution restricts government (congress) and not the people, despite what Ron Paul said in 2008.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asked.

[Kazan]

The left gets to decide what they are okay with, they don't get to decide what the right is okay with.

I don't know where you checked what the constitution does out, but you are wrong. It is a myth that the Constitution restricts government (congress) and not the people, despite what Ron Paul said in 2008.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asked.

Then why is there a bill or rights? Have you bothered to read the federalist papers? Or perhaps the ruling in U S v. CRUIKSHANK?

[chaos]

It is a myth that the Constitution restricts government (congress) and not the people, despite what Ron Paul said in 2008.

The Constitution gives the people certain inalienable rights, like the right to use our first amendment to defend undesirable people on the internet. Or the right to keep and bear arms.

[Dos Equis]

The Constitution gives the people certain inalienable rights, like the right to use our first amendment to defend undesirable people on the internet. Or the right to keep and bear arms.

Not to get too technical, but inalienable rights are not given to us by the Constitution.  We have them with or without the Constitution.  The Constitution just prevents the government from taking those rights away, without due process.   

[Agnostic007]

Not to get too technical, but inalienable rights are not given to us by the Constitution.  We have them with or without the Constitution.  The Constitution just prevents the government from taking those rights away, without due process.   

Spot on

[chaos]

Not to get too technical, but inalienable rights are not given to us by the Constitution.  We have them with or without the Constitution.  The Constitution just prevents the government from taking those rights away, without due process.   

You knew what I meant.

[Dos Equis]

You knew what I meant.

Hey aren't you my gimmick?  Am I talking to myself??      

[Agnostic007]

Hey aren't you my gimmick?  Am I talking to myself??      

well played 

[Las Vegas]

Here is a summary of him waxing eloquent.  

Yes, he may be the same one I saw before.  Probably so.  Attitude is just the same, so I can only hope there isn't more than one of them.  But with all the apparent praise he's getting for speaking so meaninglessly on the subject, other kids will figure it's the way to go for all the things they don't care to think much about.  That's dangerous to our future.  Other kids should be busy kicking his butt for the threat he causes, really, even more than for his attitude.

I looked for a transcript, thinking he'd been a guest on her show (believing all the fuss started there).  Come to find out it's entirely over a twitter post which included the word "whining" within information that otherwise leads to show he has a 4.0 or 4.1 or whatever.  But, of course, that becomes a way he may now be safely seen (by many) as a "very intelligent" person who's applied due thought on the subject.  In turn, of course, helping to counter the reality that he hasn't said anything useful.

Anyone else could've seen it coming from a mile away, especially with so little information necessary to do that.  But Laura Ingraham, a major figure who's expected to hold our ground through MSM, couldn't.  No, she could only see to do the exact opposite of that.

Strange how fake it looks.

[Las Vegas]

Not to get too technical, but inalienable rights are not given to us by the Constitution.  We have them with or without the Constitution.  The Constitution just prevents the government from taking those rights away, without due process.   

Alive in the one, but dead in the other.

[Al Doggity]

The real question is why are we asking permission to exercise our rights? Why does the left get to decide what they are OK with? Last time I checked the constitution restricts the government not the people.

Because that's how a democracy works.  

It is interesting how this kind of outrage is limited to unilateral support of that specific right and all the inane (and insane) conspiracy theories that come along with it, yet when it comes to other constitutional rights, people who have posted in this thread are perfectly fine with curtailing them, if they can convince themselves it's balanced by the greater good. Constitutionally protected voting rights? Fuck 'em. Unreasonable search and seizure? Who gives a shit?  

[Al Doggity]

And still more confirmation that these kids are being manipulated.  This is right out of the Media Matters/David Brock/liberal playbook.  They did it to Bill O'Reilly.  They tried to do it to Sean Hannity.  There is no way that kid came up with this idea on his own with the list of her advertisers at his fingertips. 

Advertisers bail as Laura Ingraham goes on vacation
Share  Tweet  Reddit  Flipboard  Email
MONEYWATCH April 2, 2018
Advertisers continued to exit Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News even as the host takes a weeklong break from the network.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laura-ingraham-advertisers-drop-show-she-goes-on-vacation/

They likely have advisers- which is reasonable for anyone on the national stage, especially a teenager- but that doesn't mean they are being manipulated.

[Kazan]

Because that's how a democracy works.  

It is interesting how this kind of outrage is limited to unilateral support of that specific right and all the inane (and insane) conspiracy theories that come along with it, yet when it comes to other constitutional rights, people who have posted in this thread are perfectly fine with curtailing them, if they can convince themselves it's balanced by the greater good. Constitutionally protected voting rights? Fuck 'em. Unreasonable search and seizure? Who gives a shit?  

Really? So the law basically means nothing? I have posted about the CLOUD act, and the attack on the 4th amendment. But this is what .gov does, get people all riled up about one thing, in this case the 2nd amendment, and do an end around to fuck us on the 4th. Patriot act and all this trade freedom for safety bullshit, people need to wake up

[Al Doggity]

Really? So the law basically means nothing? I have posted about the CLOUD act, and the attack on the 4th amendment. But this is what .gov does, get people all riled up about one thing, in this case the 2nd amendment, and do an end around to fuck us on the 4th. Patriot act and all this trade freedom for safety bullshit, people need to wake up

Didn't say the law means nothing. It's great that you posted about some of these other things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that this an issue of the left deciding what's best for everyone else. The specific things I mentioned in my last post have been defended almost exclusively by the hard-righters on this board.

[Kazan]

Didn't say the law means nothing. It's great that you posted about some of these other things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that this an issue of the left deciding what's best for everyone else. The specific things I mentioned in my last post have been defended almost exclusively by the hard-righters on this board.

What I was referring to was is when you hear "I'm OK with people having hand guns and hunting rifles, but no one needs an AR-15" argument. Which primarily comes from leftist, who by all accounts are scared to death of guns, probably don't own, touched, or even seen a real one. Yet they know exactly what some should or shouldn't have.

[Las Vegas]

Because that's how a democracy works.  

It is interesting how this kind of outrage is limited to unilateral support of that specific right and all the inane (and insane) conspiracy theories that come along with it, yet when it comes to other constitutional rights, people who have posted in this thread are perfectly fine with curtailing them, if they can convince themselves it's balanced by the greater good. Constitutionally protected voting rights? Fuck 'em. Unreasonable search and seizure? Who gives a shit?  

Fair point.  No question that some (many, most) alleged conservatives were all about pumping endless money into conjob wars abroad, endless money into mysterious new alphabet entities whose reasons can't be explained (security, ya kno!), all while further helping to butcher our own freedom at home.  Pure hypocrisy, yes.  Confidence in them now, no.  Laura Ingraham wouldn't be their go-to gal, for one thing, if it weren't true.

[Las Vegas]

IOW: The world may be soon doomed.  We're waiting for MSM to announce the spontaneous crowds of "enlightened" teenagers gathered in the streets, all chanting "Peace and Security!" as they happily celebrate (what's seen by them as) good work.

[Primemuscle]

Then why is there a bill or rights? Have you bothered to read the federalist papers? Or perhaps the ruling in U S v. CRUIKSHANK?

1. The first ten amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, help define the Constitution.

2. Have you? All 85 of them? The 85 articles and essays were written promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.

3. The verdict was guilty, overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Cruikshank severely limited the ability of the federal government to protect the civil rights of newly freed African-Americans. The federal government would not achieve the power to effectively protect civil rights until well into the 20th century.

[Skeletor]

Gun Owners Buying Guns At Record Pace in March – Thanks David Hogg!

Barack Obama still reigns as the greatest gun salesman in history.  But David “Camera” Hogg wants a shot at that title.  All the talk of gun control provided inspiration for Americans to buy a record number of guns in March.

In fact, the 2,767,699 NICS checks from March 2018 stand as the third most of any month, ever.

The FBI launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) back in 1998.  Since then, the FBI has completed 285.5M checks successfully.  Granted, not all of those represent firearm sales, the numbers do represent a gauge of firearm-purchase and -permitting activity.

Looking deeper into the FBI’s NICS numbers, about 1.4 million of those March 2018 checks came from firearm sales.  These include 781,000 transactions for handgun purchases and just shy of 541,000 for long guns.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/04/john-boch/gun-owners-buying-guns-at-record-pace-in-march-thanks-david-hogg/

[Las Vegas]

Too bad red's such an unflattering color.  Whatever shall we do.

[Las Vegas]

Linked for relevance: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=644155.0