world

Students plan protests, Washington march to demand gun control after school shooting

144 Comments
By Zachary Fagenson and Katanga Johnson

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

144 Comments
Login to comment

Good on these students!

Your grandparent's generation is leaving behind messes and it's good to see you starting to take action to clean them up.

Your grandparents used to say don't trust anyone over 30. Heed that advice.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

just get the NRA donor list and vote them out. The first three biggest recipients of money from the NRA are 1) Ted Cruz 2) Marco Rubio 3) Paul Ryan

Vote

17 ( +20 / -3 )

The only reasonable compromise that I can see, which could make everyone happy, is to agree a constitutional amendment saying that the right to bear arms will be left exclusively to the states. This way New York and California could severely restrict or even ban guns while states like Idaho could continue to have them if they want.

As an observer of this situation for decades, I can't help but be cynical when I see the same old talking points and strategies being rolled out after every shooting. I don't see any other realistic solutions here. Even if you elect enough people to pass federal gun control legislation, it will be limited in scope and open to constant challenge by the 2nd amendment. It can also be undone by the next congress with the stroke of a pen. Amending the constitution itself to ban or severely restrict guns is near impossible when you consider that you will need the consent of rural republican states to achieve this. Either way you just end up infuriating half of the country. It's not a healthy situation unless you recognise that there are real cultural and lifestyle differences across such a big country.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Great that these students are doing this. It's going to be hard for the NRA, the GOP, and Trump to justify dissing a group of kids who lost their friends and classmates in a school shooting. But I'm sure they will try.

Here are the basics:

--Common sense gun control is not a violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

--The NRA will distort the debate because it cares more about gun manufacturers than it does about lives. No way around that.

--Members of congress on both sides (but more on the GOP) are cowards for refusing to stand up to the NRA. And just as culpable in the needless deaths of thousands.

--Most Americans support more gun control. Politicians who vote against it are voting against their constituents, and in favor of gun manufacturers' profits.

As conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger (appointed by Nixon) noted in 1991, the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens (as opposed to a militia, as the constitution states clearly) to firearms "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Here are a couple of informative articles explaining that Nikolas Cruz bought his AR-15 from a gun store.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5592055/ar-15-nikolas-cruz-rifle-other-mass-shootings/

From the Sun article: ".....in Florida 18 year olds can buy semiautomatic rifles (this is actually a Federal Law).... There is a three-day waiting period for handguns, but anyone over 18 can step into a shop, have a brief background check and walk out carrying a rifle."

Pretty scary stuff.

First, there is no reason for a civilian to have an AR-15 and it is insane to allow these to be sold to the general public and second it is even more insane that the weapon is sold and there is no similar waiting period to that of a handgun (as a minimum) to buy this weapon, which in the hands of someone who is disturbed, as Cruz was, is a weapon of mass destruction.

I am a former firearm owner and I understand the concept of the 2nd Amendment and believe in it, however I do not believe in the way the 2nd Amendment is now being bastardized.

Weapons technology and society has changed dramatically since the Constitution was written.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Students across all America should ask Marc Rubio why he is only interested in stopping the killings of criminal druglords and their henchmen in a far away sovereign country outside of his jurisdiction but continues to support the NRA's move to stifle gun control?

It seems little Rubio is more concerned about the welfare of criminals in a foreign land than the school children in his USA.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

@M3 As an observer of this situation for decades,

If you have observed for decades, then you represent an 'adult' perspective. These young people are inheriting the nasty winds left behind by us. Let's see what they come up with. They're the ones whose lives are ahead of them. Let's offer them our support.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

“Common sense gun control” is just a phrase with no meaning. No one is going to agree to be bound to that without knowing what liberals consider “common sense” as related to guns.

We have seen that liberal pushed “common sense” as related to immigration and taxation isn’t what Americans want. so detail it out what you want for guns and start the discussion.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

The only reasonable compromise that I can see, which could make everyone happy, is to agree a constitutional amendment saying that the right to bear arms will be left exclusively to the states. This way New York and California could severely restrict or even ban guns while states like Idaho could continue to have them if they want.

The issue with this proposal is the only state that is an island is Hawaii and the rest of the states do not have walls around them. This means that firearms from Nevada could easily enter California even if California banned firearms.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Good on you! The NRA and politicians will be slammed nationwide. Get the guns out of your society and put a stop to massacres!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

O M G. What does it take, how many innocents need to die, how long before reality bits.

The total lack of remorse, the attitude of WHY ARE YOU BLAMING ME, I DIDN'T PULL THE TRIGGER.

This has got to highlight what this pig represents surly. Pig being Trump.

Do enough people in the land of Trump actually care, is this part of the problem?

Does the GUN LOBBY have just to much power? If so, this would suggest Trumps allies are being paid huge amount of cash TO DO NOTHING.

This is fact. We know from past situations where the GUN LOBBY have paid for an outcome.

Yet the American people as a whole ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, even at the cost of innocent lives.

In my country we call this situation THE NIMBY situation. NOT IN MY BACK YARD.

When a massacre happens somewhere else, OF DEAR HOW SAD NEVER MIND, but when it goes down in there area, OH POOR US.Is this to harsh or just reality.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Tens/Hundreds/Millions need to protest

All over the country, all over the USA

PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST

If it takes weeks and months PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST

Do not let up. Where trump goes PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

@Tommy Jones

The issue with this proposal is the only state that is an island is Hawaii and the rest of the states do not have walls around them. This means that firearms from Nevada could easily enter California even if California banned firearms.

OK, but you could make this exact same argument about virtually anything that states currently ban or tax. Are you aware that transporting more than 10 or 15 packs of cigarettes and certain quantities of alcohol across state lines is also currently illegal in many states? The difficulty of 100% enforcement has never been a convincing argument for not banning things. Most people are law abiding and will respect the law. In Europe, guns are readily available in the Czech Republic and there are open borders just as in the United States but we don't have children going to the Czech Republic to buy guns just to commit school shootings.

@PTownsend

I totally support them, and I think they have the right to live in communities that are 100% gun free. However, I also think other communities should be free to have guns if that's really how they want to live. It's not my personal preference and I wouldn't want to live in these places, but I don't want to impose my subjective preferences on them. I'm not American but I think one of the biggest problems in American politics is the 'winner take all' mentality where people want to impose their will on others across the entire country if they can get enough votes. Bringing things back to a state level might be healthier for democracy and prevent the country from ripping itself apart.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Good on these kids! Shame on Republicans for saying "this would solve nothing... we need "concealed and carry" instead!" and further pushing the gun-nutter agenda.

Seriously, people who want guns and think they are necessary, please just all line up in circles in fields and draw your guns and watch what happens (for an instant). Leave the rest of us alone. The death of these kids and the TENS OF THOUSANDS of others each year in the US when other nations don't have anywhere near that death rate, even at war, is why you DON'T need guns. The four year old just shot and killed in the US while parents argued is why. The guy killed at IHOP over a heated argument is why. There are literally no reasons why they are needed, except because other lunatics also think they need them.

And meanwhile, FOX news invited Limbaugh on the air to mock and criticize the kids after they were interviewed for their desire to change things.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The White House said Trump planned to host "a listening session" with high school students and teachers on Wednesday, but did not specify which students or school would be involved.

It will be a half-hearted patronizing effort with Trump focusing on Trump and followed by the likes of Rush Limbough or Ted Cruz dismissing the students as hyped up by militant liberals who can't change the ways of the world.

I don't expect anything from this listening session except the waste of the students' and teachers' time. Plus, they will be set-up just like Fox news did to the kids, interview the kids then have Limbough come on and disparage them without the opportunity for a rebuttal.

I do expect these kids and their families will be a political force to recon with, especially in Florida where there is a state law preventing cities and municipalities from passing laws restricting gun ownership.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Target shooting don't need a semi auto. Hunting don't need a semi auto. Home defence statistically more likely killed with your own gun. Full auto, for what? That Flock of aggressive sea gulls. Or that dream your a secret agent hunted by sea gulls in trench coats. These weapons are not what the second amendment was about. Yes everyone should have the right to own a flint lock black powder rifle. But a semi, full auto, for what reason? If you can not hit your target in 1 or 2 shoots find another hobby the next 29/28 are a waist, unless your shooting into a crowd or a class room. They talk about mental issues, well anyone who so desperately need a high magazine capacity, and high rate of fire needs to asses who actually has the mental issue.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In US politics it's all about the money. Here's a big time GOP donor who's using his money to say to the NRA enough is too much.

This Trump iteration of Republicans, one with zero sense of fiscal responsibility, one with disdain for 'family' values (though I can't really fault them on that), one that thinks it's perfectly fine that foreign nations are affecting elections, one that thinks prayers and thoughts (whatever that means) are all that can be done to stop massacres, one that's been propped up by the NRA and white nationalists, one that has its media mock young people grieving, might just be starting a slide down.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fla-donor-stop-funding-pols-oppose-gun-control-article-1.3828221

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Finally! The children of America have spoken! We should listen to them. Kids don't want to get killed for an education.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

OK, but you could make this exact same argument about virtually anything that states currently ban or tax

My point was that there needs to be tightening and enforcement of federal law, not that something shouldn't be done.

I do understand that my argument can be made about anything that is left to the states to tax or regulate. The big difference is that most things do left to the states aren't designed and used for killing other people.

. . .

Where are all the conservative posters to tell us how incorrect and ignorant these students are?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I know this is an extremely emotional issue given recent events, but when you restrict the right to own a firearm (of any kind) only criminals will have guns. Just look at Chicago with the toughest gun laws in the US next to NYC. Its now come to light that the FBI screwed up on so many levels; if they would have done the job they are paid to do (protecting citizens) and not chasing after Russian bots, this shooting may not have occurred...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

if too many students protest, police will try to stop them, the students will get angry and the police will shoot them.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I know this is an extremely emotional issue given recent events, but when you restrict the right to own a firearm (of any kind) only criminals will have guns.

Just like in Japan.

Just look at Chicago with the toughest gun laws in the US next to NYC

Chicago and NYC aren't islands and don't have walks around them, which means firearms flow in from outside sources.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

 Its now come to light that the FBI screwed up on so many levels; if they would have done the job they are paid to do (protecting citizens) and not chasing after Russian bots, this shooting may not have occurred...

This one again?! You do realize the FBI is a large organization that has the Human Resources to multitask, correct?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

People often jump on the 'ban semi-automatic assault rifles' bandwagon - and I fully understand it. But I want to point out one often overlooked issue.

Semi-Automatic Assault rifles (which look more aggressive, war-like) fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and for as many rounds are in the cartridge.

BUT so do all of the semi-automatic wooden hunting rifles that take an external cartridge - and nobody even names those long listed models by name because they don't look aggressive at all, nor war-like. They are more easily visually associated with something your GrandFather or friend's Dad had. Or a bb/pellet rifle you/friends had as a kids.

Not commenting against sensible gun laws and restrictions. Not making light of any victims or shootings. But lots of people who have minimal gun knowledge do look at one style of gun vs the other and can easily say "THAT one should be banned, but THIS one seems ok" - when in fact they are one in the same internally, just with a different set of clothes.

(and yes, there are bolt action rifles which are one shot per pull and need each shot to be ejected before another one can be fired, and rifles with a small, internal magazine which you load up before shooting).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I guess because the AF-15 assault rifle is the most used in mass shooting and not the hunting rifles.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

People may argue forever about the correlation between psychopaths and gun ownership and crime and whatever. I would just say as an obvious starter, get rid of the guns. We don't need this crap. People shoot guns because they're available. Make them less available. Bit by bit. Slippery slope all the way to Norway, baby. (BTW, you know, since Trump seems to want more Norwegians to come to America, why doesn't he go whole goat and take on not only an ethos of making lots of money off oil but also one of tolerance, trust, and mutual prosperity. Like not having massacres every month.

The 2nd Amendment was about a well regulated militia (i.e. national guard). Plain. And. Simple. Read it. The Constitution does not protect gun ownership by citizens outside such a military organization (we don't have farmer militias now; there is such a thing as context). Or if you want to include all citizens as members of a militia, why don't we just give these civilian soldiers the right to bear grenades, grenade launchers, flame throwers, tanks, and assault rifles?

Sheer nonsense. As an American, I just gotta smh. But no lol.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@Tommy

My point was that there needs to be tightening and enforcement of federal law, not that something shouldn't be done.

But what does this actually mean? How does it differ from what has been proposed unsuccessfully for the past 30 years? And what is Plan B if the gun states are not onboard with what you're selling?

Your argument that guns could still be smuggled from Nevada even if California were given the constitutional opportunity to ban them sounds exactly like an NRA argument; ie. you can't ban or restrict guns because criminals won't follow the law anyway. If you were to successfully ban guns in all 50 states, can I derail your plan by pointing out that Mexico has a constitutionally protected right to own guns and a porous 2000 mile border with the US? That's essentially your same criticism.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@TJ: you are a typical liberal who cherry-picks statements. You have no answer for the astronomical gun violence in places like Chicago with its strict gun laws. The root problem is the breakdown in families; no father present to keep children in the right direction (for the most part) and these school shooting will continue. There was the same access to guns when I grew up in the early 60's but I don't recall any school shootings and everyone in my class had a father at home. Admittedly, the FBI dropped the ball on this one, but with over 1 million people on their terrorist watch list, they have their hands full even though they are a very large organization.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

I have yet to hear of any viable, legal, comprehensive, solution.

"get the guns" isn't legal. What's the plan?

80% of the kids just want to skip school. They should protest, make noise, write the representatives, hold marches OUTSIDE school hours and get as much attention to the problem AND a solution as possible.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

There was the same access to guns when I grew up in the early 60's but I don't recall any school shootings and everyone in my class had a father at home

That's a valid point. However automatic weapons were not readily available back then meaning the risk of carnage was fairly limited.

Although I agree with you that the collapse of the family unit and American society as a whole is partly responsible for the situation you guys are in, I think it actually reinforces the fact that, now more than ever before, 'something' needs to be done.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

M3: But what does this actually mean?

Well you could close the gun show loopholes, the loophole between private parties, the "I changed my mind" loophole, require gun shops to report inventory, etc.

In reality your "ban in some places" won't change anything. It sounds like one of those red herring solutions gun supporters present because they know it won't work, but they want to say they support making changes. Kind of like how they say the problem is mental health, then those same politicians refuse to do anything about mental health.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No one has an issue with regulation on free speech (ie not shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc). This regulation has not led to the slippery slope of fascism as some would say about gun regulations.

On a similar note, I am appalled by some churches defending the second amendment and putting it on a pedestal...especially from a so called independent Christian church. It is the second amendment not the second commandment. They say we need to be able to rise against tyranny, but that argument shouldn't even be coming from a church. Jesus didn't say to Peter: "put away thy sword and equip thy AR15. Rise up and destroy those who oppose me."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I encourage any who hear pastors preaching the second amendment to sing "we shall overcome" or some other song. Join hands and sing louder than the preacher's microphone. Stand up to this travesty.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

guns are for low iq level losers. this is a world with chemical and biological weapons easily found on the internet. people need to chill out, stop eating junk food and go to the gym when they have stress.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I suppose these youths are also going to Washington and demand that politicians fire their armed bodyguards who surround them 24/7.

Instead of marching for a Candyland idea of taking guns away from law-abiding U.S. citizens, these kids should rally around the concept of telling our nation's non-elected leaders (I.e., the FBI): "see something, say something, do something". . . .

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

I suppose these youths are also going to Washington and demand that politicians fire their armed bodyguards who surround them 24/7.

The billionaire president Trump and the Republican Party want to abolish Obamacare when the president can afford private care and all the members of the congress have free healthcare.

The president in his White House and the members of the congress are highly protected by armed guards. The president and the Republican Party have not a single desire to change the gun laws which might put an end to the horrors of mass shootings especially when involving young people and children, even unborn ones.

The very same president and repubican politicians who receive millions of dollars from the NRA which also spreads fake news whenever required to further their cause of ensuring no changes to the gun laws regardless of the number of children who die.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Let's not forget these "guns everywhere" politicians are fine with banning guns at their events. Seems like it would only make the event safer, right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Student marches alone will do little, look towards History ... and particularly as this matter involves the Heart of the US Political system, it is hard to imagine anything can be done without a True Leader of the People at the Helm... William Shatner, your time has come, please step forward.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Ah shucks", he too (just like Arnie) is not US Native American.... so I guess it's going to have to be .. Oprah...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Common sense gun control is not a violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

How do you define ‘common sense gun control’? You cannot advance the debate without defining what you are talking about

Well you could close the gun show loopholes, the loophole between private parties, the "I changed my mind" loophole, require gun shops to report inventory, etc.

Cruz didn’t buy his weapon from a gun show.

I think there are reasonable restrictions that would not violate the 2nd amendment but it’s like the abortion debate. Pro-abortion people will not accept any reasonable restrictions even for healthy babies with a heartbeat and brain activity because the fear is that it’s a slippery slope to a total ban on the procedure. Those people that are hunters, target shooters, or have a gun for self defense see it the same way.

The 2nd Amendment was about a well regulated militia(i.e. national guard). Plain. And. Simple. Read it. The Constitution does not protect gun ownership by citizens outside such a military organization (we don't have farmer militias now; there is such a thing as context). 

All rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (speech, religion, search and seizure, etc). Supreme Court has stated that the right to bear arms is an individual right and was intended that way originally. Just because their are no militias today does not mean that there could not be again in the future. The amendment does not say, the right to bear arms shall be infringed outside of a militia. The rights of the people are always read in the most expansive manner, not the most restrictive.

There is a way forward and that is how M3M3M3 has described it in his comments. A Constitutional amendment that gives the people of each state more control over the right to bear arms. The argument that because each state isn’t an island so this is unworkable is specious. Fentanyle is illegal yet America is flooded with illegally imported drugs from China and other countries overseas.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

astronomical gun violence in places like Chicago with its strict gun laws.

You can own and carry a gun in Chicago. That's not strict.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's not forget these "guns everywhere" politicians are fine with banning guns at their events. Seems like it would only make the event safer, right?

Let’s not forget that these “ban all guns everywhere” politicians and celebrities use armed bodyguards to protect themselves when they could be in a dangerous situation. They want to deny the average citizen the same right to protect themselves.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Obviously some people are going to be targets because of their position. Don't be intentionally dense.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Doesn’t matter if it’s 10 rounds or 300, rapid or bolt action or pump action, 1 person or 17 people, bullets have no names. Banning the AR-15 won’t make a bean of difference, ban that, they can use a rifle and then what?

The capacity of the weapon and rare of fire do matter.

A shooter with a bolt action would have ten rounds to fire at a very slow rate before needing to reload. Reloading require more effort than slapping a new magazine in. While the shooter was reloading, he could be more easily neutralized.

A shooter with an AR would have 30 rounds to fire very quickly before only needing to slap in another magazine.

A hell of a lot more rounds flying down range with an AR means more carnage.

Any firearm collector and/or hunter would know that the capacity and rate of fire of a weapon bear on the amount of carnage it can do.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Let’s not forget that these “ban all guns everywhere” politicians and celebrities use armed bodyguards to protect themselves when they could be in a dangerous situation.

To protect them from nutters with firearms.

They want to deny the average citizen the same right to protect themselves.

This statement in no way reflects reality.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

BUT so do all of the semi-automatic wooden hunting rifles that take an external cartridge - and nobody even names those long listed models by name because they don't look aggressive at all, nor war-like. They are more easily visually associated with something your GrandFather or friend's Dad had. Or a bb/pellet rifle you/friends had as a kids.

Those semi-auto hunting rifles have a smaller capacity than assault rifles.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I think there are reasonable restrictions that would not violate the 2nd amendment

Agreed. How do you define ‘reasonable restrictions’? You cannot advance the debate without defining what you are talking about

but it’s like the abortion debate. Pro-abortion people will not accept any reasonable restrictions even for healthy babies with a heartbeat and brain activity because the fear is that it’s a slippery slope to a total ban on the procedure.

First, nobody is pro-abortion. Labeling it as such implies people are getting pregnant just to get an abortion. Nobody is handing out frequent flyer cards to those that get an abortion.

Second, pro don't tell others what to do with their body people do accept reasonable restrictions on abortion.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

 The argument that because each state isn’t an island so this is unworkable is specious.

Fentanyle is illegal yet America is flooded with illegally imported drugs from China and other countries overseas.

Bevause firearms are as easy to conceal for shipment as fentanyle.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Vernon WattsFeb. 19  07:51 pm JST

. The root problem is the breakdown in families;

[CITATION NEEDED]

theFuFeb. 19  08:21 pm JST

80% of the kids just want to skip school.

[CITATION NEEDED]

GoodlucktoyouFeb. 19  10:53 pm JST

this is a world with chemical and biological weapons easily found on the internet.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Texas A&M AggieFeb. 19  11:00 pm JST

our nation's non-elected leaders (I.e., the FBI):

[CITATION NEEDED]

WolfpackToday  03:39 am JST

They want to deny the average citizen the same right to protect themselves.

[CITATION NEEDED]

US youths are rolling up their sleeves and trying to fix the deadly problems that for generations their elders have ignored, and the conservatives here have no arguments left other than unsupportable fantasies.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@TJ: you are a typical liberal who cherry-picks statements. 

I literally responded to every sentence in your post. How is that cherry picking?

You are a typical conservative who doesn't understand the words they are employing. (I don't believe this, but can play the broad-stroke painting game too.)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Katsu: Awesome in its simplicity.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There are millions of legally licensed guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition in this country. Law-abiding Americans are not the problem. Our Founders created the Second Amendment to give Americans the power to protect themselves against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

Never letting a good crisis go to waste, democrats, liberals and leftists are bonding together to become a rogue government. Let's cut to the chase: Their Nirvana is complete confiscation of all firearms owned by private citizens in this country. They want all Americans to be disarmed so that any impediment to their tyranny is minimized.

Witnessing teenagers venting their rage at President Trump and blaming him and the NRA (taking a political stance) for the shooting in Florida rather than at the person who actually pulled the trigger bears witness to the success of a U.S. public school school system that has transformed into uber-liberal indoctrination "education" centers. . . .

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Law-abiding Americans are not the problem.

But Nikolas Cruz was law abiding - until he killed a bunch of kids who were committing the sin of trying to get educated.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Their Nirvana is complete confiscation of all firearms owned by private citizens in this country. They want all Americans to be disarmed so that any impediment to their tyranny is minimized.

Wrong. But hey, good job at trying to paint extremist positions on the other team. Team politics FTW!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Team Politics the lives of kids trying to get educated.

Yay 'Merikuh!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hmm, turns out you can't use the greater-than symbol here. I'll try that again:

Team Politics more important the lives of kids trying to get educated.

Yay 'Merikuh!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

They want all Americans to be disarmed so that any impediment to their tyranny is minimized.

Like in Australia?

The American right lives in constant fear. Fear of immigrants, fear of minorities, fear of women, fear of LGBTQ, fear of Islam, fear of science, fear of facts, fear of its own government. It has almost no faith in the democracy it lives under. It thinks the only way to keep a country free is through guns.

Pretty sad vision for a country, my friend.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Shatner isn't qualified to be President. He was born in Canada. I think he became a Naturalized US Citizen.

Limitations on freedom of speech exist in very specific locations. But we can yell "FIRE!" in an open field. The rules don't take away our ability to talk or sing or yell almost everywhere else.

Limitations on the right to bare arms also exist, locations like govt building, liquor stores, mental illness, background checks, and carry permits are just a few of those limitations. There are more restrictions about where those weapons can be fired. For example, I cannot target shoot on my land - and I don't live inside any city limits. The limitations on firearms are significantly more than most people know.

But, the fact that I have to get a drivers license to operate a vehicle, but don't need a firearm license to purchase/operate a firearm doesn't sit well with me.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Tommy Jones - Feb. 19 05:58 pm JST Its now come to light that the FBI screwed up on so many levels; if they would have done the job they are paid to do (protecting citizens) and not chasing after Russian bots, this shooting may not have occurred...

This one again?! You do realize the FBI is a large organization that has the Human Resources to multitask, correct?

The FBI seems to be preoccupied. Probably too busy investigating the Russian/Trump "collusion" fairytale. The FBI couldn't make the time to find this "I want to be a school shooter" psychopath while they had his name and picture. The FBI has admitted that they screwed up.

This is the 2nd time this monster brought a gun into a gun-free zone (aka school). Law-abiding teachers, and staff, are left defenseless because law-abiding people don't break the law. It's obvious that criminals and psychopaths do.

This psychopath's neighbor is on Youtube talking about witnessing this psychopath shooting the neighbor's chickens. I'm pretty sure that's illegal and against the law. Did anyone put the psychopath in jail? It's been reported that this psychopath was receiving mental healthcare visits at home. This psychopath would probably been better served by regular visits with a prison psychiatrist. In prison.

This psychopath had more than enough red flags to outfit a May Day parade. And yet he was still being allowed to walk around free, outside the walls of a mental health facility, or jail.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

plasticmonkey - Like in Australia?

I've heard that firearm ownership in Australia is back up to where it was before the government committed their registration/confiscation.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Strangerland - But Nikolas Cruz was law abiding.....

No he wasn't. The authorities seemed to be going out of their way not to arrest this psychopath. Arrest him, and have a judge send him for a complete psychological workup. If you see something, say something. And then follow thru. I wonder how many other psychopaths are out there that they've missed?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

arrestpaul

The FBI seems to be preoccupied. Probably too busy investigating the Russian/Trump "collusion" fairytale. The FBI couldn't make the time to find this "I want to be a school shooter" psychopath while they had his name and picture. The FBI has admitted that they screwed up.

Whatever mistakes the FBI it can't have been because of the Special Investigation about Russians because that only involves three FBI agents leaving 35,000 other agents.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Never letting a good crisis go to waste, democrats, liberals and leftists are bonding together to become a rogue government. Let's cut to the chase: Their Nirvana is complete confiscation of all firearms owned by private citizens in this country. They want all Americans to be disarmed so that any impediment to their tyranny is minimized.

This statement literally has no relation to reality.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The FBI seems to be preoccupied. Probably too busy investigating the Russian/Trump "collusion" fairytale. The FBI couldn't make the time to find this "I want to be a school shooter" psychopath while they had his name and picture. The FBI has admitted that they screwed up.

Zichi handled this one nicely.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I am very sorry what happened to their friends that got killed in this shooting spree, but I am not going to listen to a bunch teenage kids that just listen to the news and then they give their opinions on this. They don't know what they're talking about. They live in their own high school world. They don't know what it is to be in the real world yet. President Trump is doing a great job for our country. The media has been against him ever since he ran for president. They have not given him the credit that he deserves. I don't believe the polls that show him not doing a good job as our president. I don't believe the media at all. All I know is the people came out and voted for the Wright person, and that is president Trump. That's why we need a person like him today. He is a good and honest person. I hope he runs for president again because i will vote for him again.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

SuperLib: Obviously some people are going to be targets because of their position. Don't be intentionally dense.

Well obviously sometimes people in ordinary positions become targets as well for any number of reasons. You are pushing an elitist view that the lives of the rich and famous are more important than the lives of ordinary people. I reject that view.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Plastic: The American right lives in constant fear. 

The same can be said of the American Left. They live in constant fear of Christians, white males, hunters, people who want to prevent abortion, they fear freedom of speech on college campuses and personal responsibility. They are terrified of America’s Constitution and continually seek to undermine it - particularly the Bill of Rights. They simply hate people that refuse to think the way they do. Superficial diversity is fine - diversity of thought is verboten.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

New gun laws like outlawing certain firearms or restricting sales won't stop the next potential killer because he (or she) already has a gun or access to one.

Restricting our ability to protect ourselves does not prevent the next killer from doing a mass shooting. Criminals already have guns, and will always be able to have guns. Innocent potential victims need to also be able to have guns.. . . .

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Texas A&M Aggie

New gun laws like outlawing certain firearms or restricting sales won't stop the next potential killer because he (or she) already has a gun or access to one.

Except you are only assuming that and don't actually know since you don't know who the next mass shooter and murderer will be. Yes, it could even be a gun owner of many years and goes into a mental collapse and meltdown over getting fired from his job or discovering his wife is having an affair.

So lets not do anything and put all the deaths from these killing down to collateral damage.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Freedom vs reliance on state sponsored security services. The Founders had a healthy skepticism of government. As we have seen with the FBI’s failure to stop the Florida shooter they were right. You cannot depend on government to safeguard your right to life.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Wolfpack

As we have seen with the FBI’s failure to stop the Florida shooter they were right. You cannot depend on government to safeguard your right to life.

Except you rely on your government every single day to protect you not only with various police forces and agencies but also a huge military costing more trillions than the total budgets of some countries.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

zichi - Except you are only assuming that and don't actually know since you don't know who the next mass shooter and murderer will be. 

You are the one assuming that the next mass murderer will use a firearm. They're just as likely to use a bomb, or plane, or motor vehicle, or poison. What mass murderers have in common is that THEY have decided to commit mass murder. You only want to address mass murders committed with firearms (aka mass shootings). Because of that, you're trying to ban/restrict firearms. In another nation. You're not addressing the fact that there are potential mass murderers out there who have not yet chosen their weapon of choice.

New gun laws like outlawing certain firearms or restricting sales won't stop the next potential killer because he (or she) already has a gun, or access to one, or will chose a bomb, plane, car, or train wreck to commit mass murder. If you want to stop/reduce mass murder, you have to address the real issue, and the real issue is the red-flagged psychopath who chooses to commit mass murder. If you see something, say something. And you may even have to prod authorities to take action.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

zichi - Except you rely on your government every single day to protect you not only with various police forces and agencies but also a huge military costing more trillions than the total budgets of some countries.

While I RELY on the government to protect me and my family from harm, they can't be everywhere for everybody. I assume that I will have to defend myself until help arrives. I doubt that I could count on you, or any of these gun-banning, protesting, marching students, for assistance.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Wolfpack: You are pushing an elitist view that the lives of the rich and famous are more important than the lives of ordinary people. I reject that view.

Is it because you aren't rich and famous?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

zichi - Whatever mistakes the FBI it can't have been because of the Special Investigation about Russians because that only involves three FBI agents leaving 35,000 other agents.

Only three? Really? And how do you know this? Who fed you this information? The Russians?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Tommy Jones - This statement literally has no relation to reality.

Who's reality? The voters? The voters voted to remove many of the gun-banning Democrat politicians who wanted to register/confiscate, or ban, firearms.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

arrestpaul

Only three? Really? And how do you know this? Who fed you this information? The Russians?

That's why GOD invented Google, so people like you, can make a simple search to learn who are the 20 members of the Special Investigation into Russia.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Some people here are defending US gun laws by stating that gun ownership in my country (Australia) is now back to the levels of before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre (35 dead, 23 wounded) after which there was significant tightening of ownership laws. Sure, the numbers of guns are up since then. But so is the population in the same period - by 5 million, to about 24 million. Per capita, gun ownership in Australia is down by 23% since Port Arthur.

There are still too many guns in this country, but 80% of our gun deaths are suicide by firearm. I read somewhere that the NRA tried to say that the tighter gun laws are unpopular here. Opinion polls consistently give a figure of about 45% of Australians who think the gun laws we have now are about right, while about the same number (including me) think they should be tighter. That leaves the NRA types with about 10%.

I'd like to believe that these students will get US gun laws changed, but I doubt it. As always with the US when it comes to guns, there'll be a bit of noise for a while, a bit of hand-wringing - then back to business as usual - with the guns, and the laws that support them, still in place.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You are the one assuming that the next mass murderer will use a firearm.

That's basically the track record and it is expected again (like the last 10s and 10s of times)

Democrat politicians who wanted to register/confiscate, or ban, firearms.

But Trump is doing this now with the talk of banning modifications. Trump is now a gun grabbing Liberal.

I assume that I will have to defend myself until help arrives.

With a gun? Is this in Japan? You can't have a gun in Japan and people here have swords and cars. Also, they could attack in big groups. You can't even carry a knife in Japan as the police would pick you up here for that.

Because of that, you're trying to ban/restrict firearms.

So then it should be allowed to buy a multi-fire grenade launcher at Walmart as easy as a pair of socks? Because guns are not the problem. then any gun at any power - including military grade - should be available to citizens if they have the money to pay for it. Otherwise it's an infringement of Americans' rights.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

arrestpaul

While I RELY on the government to protect me and my family from harm, they can't be everywhere for everybody. I assume that I will have to defend myself until help arrives. I doubt that I could count on you, or any of these gun-banning, protesting, marching students, for assistance.

In Japan you won't have guns and if you do it will be limited to shot guns for 10 years and then you might be allowed a rifle. Also the number of bullets/buckshot you can hold are limited. For your protection and that of the family will have to come from the trust of the society and the various security agencies.

But you and your family can sleep peacefully at night the gun crime rate is almost zero.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How about the US government give up their guns first? Selling weapons and causing destruction? The young are probably a little traumatized and definitely MSM minipulated, just like this Reuters globalist BS.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

How about the US government give up their guns first?

Every government has guns. Japan has guns.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The American society from the president down have failed the dead students and teachers.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The guns are NEVER going away. Firearms are integral to the culture of the Americas as a whole, armed insurrection is at the heart of every national story on these continents except for the Canadians. They are armed to the teeth as well. Remember how that shooter at their capitol got fired on by one of their politicians?

"Moments after Cirillo was shot at his post by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, MPs and other witnesses reported 30 to 50 shots fired inside the main Parliament building.

It was confirmed later that the gunman was shot dead inside the building, felled by the House of Commons sergeant-at-arms and RCMP, according to MPs' accounts."

In my personal life My concealed .38 saved my life in Las Vegas , NV. My wife ...a Japanese national is fully trained in the use of Small arms(and the law surrounding their use including should she have to use it on someone), including assault rifles as is her right as a permanent resident of the USA. What they need to do is start properly linking the psychotic drugs they hand out like candy to these events .

Going to high school in multiple places here in the USA....including Las Vegas, NV and Queens NYC...I regularly saw weapons at school, never was there a mass shooting..or stabbing for that matter. At least on campus. I am talking about anything from box cutters, pen knives, blackjacks, pistols and at Francis Lewis in Fresh Meadows Queens NYC ( mostly NE Asian school BTW) some kid bought an Ingram MAC-11 to a fight there. This school had an NYPD police station in it. WE had a Fight Club

They already ban assault rifles/air guns/ BB guns/ Crossbows in certain states...like the communist state of New Jersey/ New York...not that it stops any shootings. I get finger printed and my background run against a database everytime I legally buy a weapon. I also know where to get weapons illegally to, but to be honest I know where to get weapons (revolvers) in Japan(Osaka and Fukuoka at least) too. You absolutely will not stop someone determined and especially under the influence of powerful psychotropic narcotics.

Case in Point- Ikeda, Japan – June 8, 2001: 37-year-old Mamoru Takuma, wielding a 6-inch knife, slipped into an elementary school and stabbed eight first- and second-graders to death while wounding at least 15 other pupils and teachers. He then turned the knife on himself but suffered only superficial wounds. He later told interrogators that before the attack he had taken 10 times his normal dose of antidepressants. Police said he had been under the care of a psychiatrist.

Jokela, Finland – November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.

Kauhajoki, Finland – September 23, 2008: 22-year-old culinary student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and alprazolam (Xanax). He was also seeing a psychologist.

I just pulled up some foreign ones first, the shootings in the USA all had anti depressants involved.

Also Brazil, Mexico, Panama, Jamaica...all have more strict gun laws than the USA. You will catch a bullet there.

But my favorite example is Honduras "In 2003, a ban on certain assault rifles was passed, restricting citizens from possessing military-style rifles such as the AK-47 and the M-16." - Yea well Honduras is the murder capital of the American continent right now.

"CCHR has documented 65 high profile acts of senseless violence, including mass school shootings, mass stabbings, and even the intentional crashing of a commercial airplane, committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs, resulting in 357 dead and 336 wounded. Drug proponents argue that there are thousands of shootings and acts of violence that have not been correlated to psychiatric drugs but as CCHR points out, these have neither been confirmed nor refuted to have been connected to psychiatric drugs. This is largely because law enforcement may not be educated about the studies showing the link or are not required to investigate or report on prescribed psychotropic drugs linked to violence.

The New York State Senate recognized the lack of reporting correlating mind-altering psychiatric drugs to both suicide and violence as far back as 2000, when the senate introduced a bill which would "require police to report to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), certain crimes and suicides committed by persons using psychotropic drugs," citing "a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs."

Unfortunately, that bill stalled out in the finance committee, yet had it passed, a reporting system would be in place to determine the extent to which violence is committed by those under the influence of mind-altering prescribed drugs.

The FDA admits that only 1-10 percent of drug adverse effects are reported to MedWatch[6], so taking a medium range of 5 percent, the number of homicidal ideation/homicides linked to psychiatric drugs could be more than 30,600.

CCHR says that while not all of the millions of Americans taking these drugs will experience violent reactions, drug regulatory agency warnings confirm that a percentage will. And no one knows who will be next.

Some examples of high-profile cases where the individual was under the influence of such drugs include John Hinckley who on March 30, 1981 gunned down James Brady, press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, a Secret Service agent, and a D.C. police officer outside the Washington Hilton Hotel. A psychiatrist later attributed Hinckley's attack on the president and others to a violent rage precipitated by diazepam.[7]"

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 cannot be repealed and invalidates all gun-control laws.

Besides the culture, this is why guns In America will never be taken away. Period.

As someone who is dual citizen American Canadian residing between Canada, Switzerland, and Japan who used to serve in the US Marine Corp Special Forces, I personally own couple of guns for protection.

I own a shotgun in Canada and a handgun in Switzerland. As far as bump stocks go, if they really do get banned, I see it as no big deal whatsoever for several reasons:

One you can't shoot straight with one.

Two, you should not waste that much ammo when you are not going to be re-supplied.

Three, I don't know of anyone as far as I know and talk to among avid gun owners, who totally support fully automatic weapons in public hands.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

this'll work. A bunch of 16 year-olds who have their noses constantly in their smartphones are now going to lecture us on gun control?

Indeed, I saw one group still clearly in a state of shock tweet a selfie before setting out for their protest.

They are nothing but pawns in a political game.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Mouthbreathers are those who go see comic book movies pastvthe age of 18.

Like Road to Perdition, Persepolis, Waltz With Bashir, American Splendor, From Hell, Ghost World, Men in Black, The Mask, Oblivion etc?

Kids are not in a firing line. That’s media scaremongering

Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland and countless others. No kids dying there. Right?

So, have you ever protested at injustice?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A bunch of 16 year-olds who have their noses constantly in their smartphones

Claiming the youth are worthless - an age old tradition.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I'm outraged that innocent young lives are being wiped out and furthermore, outraged that when they are brave enough to do something they are dismissed as worthless.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 cannot be repealed and invalidates all gun-control laws.

Nope:

Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an “absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type.”

https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp

Uknown, you seem to be new to posting here (or your another one of Bass' screen names). This is the third post of yours that has been factually incorrect. There are far too many educated posters to try and get away with what you're doing; disinformation and half truths are always called out on these threadsz

0 ( +2 / -2 )

outraged that when they are brave enough to do something they are dismissed as worthless.

or acting, or posing. It's pretty pathetic when rightist media demean them and cynical politicians exploit them. Watch these cowards who demean young people, young people who are genuinely frightened and have every reason to be because they don't feel safe in school, try to outmuscle them at rallies.

Let's hope none of the rightist cowards bring their weapons with them in a further display of their cowardice.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

*you're

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Arrest:

Never letting a good crisis go to waste, democrats, liberals and leftists are bonding together to become a rogue government. Let's cut to the chase: Their Nirvana is complete confiscation of all firearms owned by private citizens in this country. They want all Americans to be disarmed so that any impediment to their tyranny is minimized

Me:.

This statement literally has no relation to reality.

Arrest:

Who's reality? The voters? The voters voted to remove many of the gun-banning Democrat politicians who wanted to register/confiscate, or ban, firearms.

The reality of everyone who's not in the bubble you and certain other conservatives occupy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

UknownPlayer

As someone who is dual citizen American Canadian residing between Canada, Switzerland, and Japan who used to serve in the US Marine Corp Special Forces, I personally own couple of guns for protection. I own a shotgun in Canada and a handgun in Switzerland.

You served with an elite anti-terrorist unit? Quiet a leap from there and into big international finance.

Should all assault type weapons be banned? What gun controls would reduce/end these so many tragic mass shootings.

You have no guns while in Japan though.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Since the NRA is so clever has it paid for any of the children funerals?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

so IF the USA government crushes the NRA in America, 

The NRA is part of the government and will not be crushed. Both democrats and republicans have no real interest or intentions to change the gun laws, ban assault weapons or change the 2nd amendment.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So, have you ever protested at injustice?

Nope. I've never treated myself as a victim. It leads to weakness.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

and TH - in case you missed it, I called the tiny insignificant band of white supremacists in Charlottesville "losers" who should have been left alone to have their little march.

But Anita and BLM thugs set in motion violence that ended up with a young lady dead.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

actually, TH, Im belittling Democrats who are using these kids as pawns for the cameras.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

and TH - in case you missed it, I called the tiny insignificant band of white supremacists in Charlottesville "losers" who should have been left alone to have their little march.

That's not how a democracy works. The hate mongers get to speak, and the reasonable-minded get to respond. Until there is immenemt danger of physical violence. All of which the government is responsible to allow (speech) and prevent (riots).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

actually, TH, Im belittling Democrats who are using these kids as pawns for the cameras.

Who was it that First used these victims as pawns? Cites, good fellow, cites.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

you can march to your little heart’s content. That doesn’t mean it’s for a good cause or wise

Less firearm violence isn't a good cause? Fewer dead students and teachers isn't a good cause?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Less firearm violence isn't a good cause? Fewer dead students and teachers isn't a good cause?

Sure it is, Tommy. But their little march won't achieve either. All it will do is create more outrage for the already willing.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

But their little march won't achieve either. All it will do is create more outrage for the already willing.

Ahh the cynicism of the old. Thank god for the young, or humanity would be doomed. If we only listened to the cynical, we could never make anything better, because something else may be made worse, or it didn't work last time.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sure it is, Tommy.

Good.

But their little march won't achieve either. All it will do is create more outrage for the already willing.

The alternative is they do not express themselves. These young adults are taking part in the process in a constructive way. That some - you included - are outraged is not the problem of these stakeholders.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The alternative is they do not express themselves. These young adults are taking part in the process in a constructive way. That some - you included - are outraged is not the problem of these stakeholders.

no, I don't speak that language. I don't get outraged. I calmly point out to people where I believe they are wrong and then absorb outrage from the same cast of characters .

These young people are not taking part in any process besides being used as pawns by desperate Democrats.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

These young people are not taking part in any process besides being used as pawns by desperate Democrats.

Yeah, they most definitely didn't come to dislike guns from having watched their classmates executed in the school hallways. After all, they would have had to lift their eyes from their smartphones to have seen the bodies. Right Clammy?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

zichi - In Japan you won't have guns

Japan? You're trying to ban firearms in the U.S.. You prefer to call "mass murders" "mass shootings" because you're trying to ban firearms in the U.S.. Stopping "mass murders" by identifying, and dealing with potential psychopaths will also stop "mass shootings". Your idea of stopping "mass shootings" by banning firearms won't stop "mass murders". The potential psychopaths are still out there watching uber violent Hollyweird movies, playing uber violent video games, listening to uber violent gangsta music, and not taking their prescribed medication. You prefer to blame inanimate objects for the actions of psychopaths.

The U.S. has been discussing registration/confiscation, and gun bannings, since 1968. You don't have any new arguments, just the usual rehash of the same old things. What you don't seem to have is any influence with American voters who are familiar with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Bill or Rights, and why the British colonies in America engaged in a revolution/shooting war with England.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Tommy Jones - Who was it that First used these victims as pawns?

That would be the mass murdering psychopath who used his own twisted, sick logic to decide that these victims should die. Or are one of those people who believe that a inanimate firearm made the psychopath's decision for him?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Tommy Jones - The alternative is they do not express themselves.

They can express themselves in any non-violent way they wish. However, if they intend to stop mass murders, then they'll have to address the fact that mass murders are committed by mass murderers. Human beings who has no  empathy for other human beings. Attempting to limiting a psychopath's choice of weapons doesn't make a psychopath any less dangerous. They are still psychopaths.

Identification, treatment, medication, and, if necessary, isolation from society is required to prevent psychopaths from committing mass murder. But who's going to tell the student protestors that simple fact? All they hear from liberals, progressives, teachers, gun banners, biased news media-types, and Democrats is that inanimate objects make decisions for them. And some of them actually believe that. Plus, they get a day away from school.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

zichi - The NRA is part of the government and will not be crushed.

Where do you get these fantastic stories? The Russians?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

nishikat - But Trump is doing this now with the talk of banning modifications. Trump is now a gun grabbing Liberal.

LOL. The "modification" in question was permitted by the BATFE under the Obama administration's Just-Us Dept. The BATFE's rule is that firearm could only fire one round with each pull of the trigger, or that weapon/device had to be classified differently. Or at least it was?

In spite of the fact that the "bump fire" device was designed to allow persons with a physical handicap that did not allow them to operate a bolt action, or lever action, or semi-automatic action, or pump action firearm, a person could still buy a "bump fire" device that allowed them to fire multiple rounds with a single (one) pull of the trigger. The BATFE examined, and classified, this device. During the Obama administration reign. And it was done at the same time Obama's BATFE, and DOJ, were involved in the illegal purchase, illegal sales, illegal transport, and illegal export of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. I see an Obama administration pattern here.

It appears that Trump is now attempting to correct yet another of Obama's misguided failures.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

That would be the mass murdering psychopath who used his own twisted, sick logic to decide that these victims should die.

The shooter made them victims, not pawns. Some fat, old semi-deranged guy linking the shooting with the Russia thing turned them into pawns.

Or are one of those people who believe that a inanimate firearm made the psychopath's decision for him?

You mean the people that understand a psychopath' decision to kill is exacerbated when that paychopath can easily access an assault rifle. No, they didn't turn anyone into a pawn, they spike the truth.

They can express themselves in any non-violent way they wish.

The students aren't expressing themselves with violence.

However, if they intend to stop mass murders, then they'll have to address the fact that mass murders are committed by mass murderers. Human beings who has no empathy for other human beings. Attempting to limiting a psychopath's choice of weapons doesn't make a psychopath any less dangerous. They are still psychopaths.

So if a psychopath only has access to a bolt action rifle, they are as dangerous as a psychopath with access to an assault rifle? If this were remotely true, machine guns would not have been invented.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What nonsense.

Young people these days would use any excuse to cut classes.

March on your own free time, not during school hours.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

March on your own free time, not during school hours.

How about attending the funerals of dead friends? A valid excuse to be absent? Or is burying the dead elitist and liberal?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zichiFeb. 22 04:58 pm JST

UknownPlayer

As someone who is dual citizen American Canadian residing between Canada, Switzerland, and Japan who used to serve in the US Marine Corp Special Forces, I personally own couple of guns for protection. I own a shotgun in Canada and a handgun in Switzerland.

You served with an elite anti-terrorist unit? Quiet a leap from there and into big international finance.

Should all assault type weapons be banned? What gun controls would reduce/end these so many tragic mass shootings.

You have no guns while in Japan though.

Apologize for not responding as I extremely managing some trading positions. Of course I don't have any guns while in Japan. That's madness!! As for weapons banned and mass shootings subject matter, I will give you my take on those issues by connecting it to constitution 2nd amendment, market, psychiatric drugs and FPV video games.

I'm aware you were also a soldier in UK? Anyways as for me I am, Samoan/Polynesian ethnicity born out of Hilo, Hawaii, 43 years young, serve in US Marine Corps Special Forces specifically in 2nd Marine Division of 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion Unit in Iraq war 2003-2008. My homecamp was at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and got deployed to Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Our division was responsible for operations in Al Anbar Province in western Iraq from the 1st Marine Division in March 2005. The province is part of the "Sunni Triangle," where the Iraqi insurgency was very active, and includes the cities of Falluja and Ramadi at that time.

I became soldier right out of after high school in 1993 so thats about 15 yrs of service. I think the war supposedly ended around 2011ish but only able to serve until 2008 due getting shot on the shoulder and also ended tearing my ACL and MCL at the same during a critical standoff. Return home due to injury and ended rehabing for a year or so.

While contemplating about the future during the painful rehab, I decided to take the IDE (International and Development Economics) at Yale University since my mobility was not great. When I was a kid living in a very poor orphanage, I always had the knack for anything related to global outreach regarding money and getting rich. Year after graduate, I work for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division specifically in Foreign Exchange area back in 2012-2015. Now after three years. I personally trade my own funds as an Institutional trader and investor full time basis.

Anyway back to topic... I am not a conservative nor a liberal/progressive although my postings might lean slightly to centrist conservativeish, I am a proud PATRIOT and Constitutionist: US Constitution and all the states constitutions. As and ex-soldier its my honor and duty to try my best to preserve and protect the constitution. Since I am not lawyer or judge, I will still try to do my best to NOT “interpret” the US Constitution but to take its words as the meaning of them are easily found (language does change over time). I also read news events and discussions of the time to gain a better understanding of their (framers) meaning when they say or write something. The way it was taken to mean by the people of the nation.

So following the murder of 17 students at a Florida high school, Trump has announced his commitment to enacting further unconstitutional federal gun control legislation. It’s a textbook example of why we shouldn’t trust politicians to protect our rights, and why I recommend anti-commandeering strategy at the state and local level is so vital. It goes without saying that the Second Amendment leaves no room for the feds to handle this issue; it is clearly left to the states, per the 10 Amendment. But because the Second Amendment is not in force effectively today, gun grabbers are eager to use any and every opportunity to push forward with their agenda.

If every state had a law on the books simply refusing to enforce any and all future federal gun laws, then this discussion occurring in D.C. would be dead on arrival. But because states have not taken that critical step, we are forced once again to hope and pray that sufficient pressure is levied on Congress to stop any gun control bill brought forward. This is also a lesson for those who think that lawmakers with the right letter next to their name can be trusted to defend the Second Amendment. The Congress is controlled by Republicans, as is the executive branch. How many more Republican legislators are needed before this issue becomes moot?

It doesn’t matter whether Trump or any other politician is under heavy political pressure. What matters is that the entire problem could be preemptively eliminated by passing a some type of modified version 2nd Amendment that provides enhancement at the state, county, and even city level. If Americans want to protect their gun rights, the answer isn’t in hiring the right lobbyists, or donating to the right political campaign, or joining the NRA. It’s taking action where you live and putting as many obstacles to unconstitutional laws in place as you can – right now, and before any new ones arise.

The threat of new and more intrusive violations of our right to keep and bear arms never goes away, regardless of election outcomes. Suffice to say, federal courts can’t be trusted to strike down these illegal measures, either. I advocate that refusal to cooperate with officers of the union would be an effective means of preventing the feds from stepping outside their constitutional bounds. The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce. Unlike other methods of resisting federal tyranny, this approach has 170 years of legal jurisprudence behind it. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot be required to enforce federal laws. So I would recommend by contacting local legislator and telling them to introduce their own version of the 2nd Amendment. I will leave it this regarding the 2nd amendment and will provide my opinion in regards to the other 2 connections for another couple more postings when I have some time. Apologize for the long post. Please understand I come from military background as we need to be thorough with our thoughts to try and best cover almost every angle as well as in addition to my economical global perspective from writing tons and tons of thesis during my uni days at Yale.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Today 12:50 pm JST Posted in: Students plan protests, Washington march to demand gun control after school shooting See in context

zichiFeb. 22 04:58 pm JST

UknownPlayer

As someone who is dual citizen American Canadian residing between Canada, Switzerland, and Japan who used to serve in the US Marine Corp Special Forces, I personally own couple of guns for protection. I own a shotgun in Canada and a handgun in Switzerland.

You served with an elite anti-terrorist unit? Quiet a leap from there and into big international finance.

Should all assault type weapons be banned? What gun controls would reduce/end these so many tragic mass shootings.

You have no guns while in Japan though.

This is a continuation from the previous post:

https://japantoday.com/category/world/update-1-u.s.-students-plan-protests-washington-march-to-demand-gun-control-after-mass-shooting#comment-1617069

As for you question regarding banning all assault weapons, yea I can fully support that. I agree its going to make a difference but I am not so sure about in the long run. Crazies will find a way to get it somewhere, somehow. That is just human nature.

Anyways, now onto how we may able to preemptively prevent and/or reduce (sorry but it will never end) these tragic mass shootings. My opinion will have some economic market elements in this. Last week’s shooting at a high school in Florida was a grim and jarring reminder of deep cultural problems lurking just beneath the veneer of our materially comfortable society. Those problems are beyond the scope of libertarianism per se, but again we see that greater liberty will require a renaissance in civil society: nihilism and hopelessness among any segment of the population is far more dangerous than “assault rifles.” The less we are governed internally, the more we invite external governance from the state.

Millions of guns already exist everywhere in American households, so enacting laws “like Europe” won’t work. Voluntary turnovers of guns to police won’t even scratch the surface, much less entice criminals. Involuntary confiscation is both a political and practical nonstarter. There are no top-down political solutions available from Washington. Gun control doesn't actually prevent crime, but it does provide the political class and media with another diversionary bitter cultural debate. Americans are deeply divided on guns, just as they are deeply divided on abortion and climate change and scores of other issues. And why should we expect otherwise, in a far-flung country of 320 million people with wildly diverse geographies, economies, and cultures?

Real federalism, long abandoned by progressives and conservatives alike, is one approach with the potential to reduce political conflicts over guns. Manhattan and Montana might have different perspectives here, and both can manage things without Congress. Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment neither “federalized” gun laws nor created a right to private ownership of firearms. It simply enshrined the notion that “the people” need to be armed to defend themselves potentially against the state itself. We don’t need a constitution to recognize all humans have an innate and pre-existing right to self-defense. To make that right effective (especially for weaker members of society) tools must be employed. Guns are simply those tools, inanimate objects that cannot be imbued with innate qualities of good or evil. The right to own guns flows naturally from self-ownership of our bodies.

The libertarian response to mass shootings, in particular school shootings, is to allow teachers and other personnel to carry weapons on campus. In fact, the broader libertarian program is to have most people armed, or at least potentially armed, to create a safer (not to mention more polite) society. If we cannot snap our fingers and produce crime-free cities and neighborhoods where nobody needs to carry a gun, then at least we allow everyone the ability to dissuade or defend against criminal shooters. This is all well and good, but ignores the market impulse to outsource services to specialists. This is why neighborhoods hire private security patrols, and why celebrities hire professional bodyguards. Not everyone wants to carry a gun or train themselves in gun proficiency. And there is the issue of scale, where individuals might find themselves arrayed against organized criminal gangs.    

Rather than endlessly debate the fraught political process of crafting illiberal gun control laws, we ought to think about private-market solutions that focus on controlling crime. We should think in terms of market economics, where private property and correct incentives give us what government and laws cannot: a mechanism to determine possible harms and the cost of protecting against or preventing those harms. People want safe neighborhoods and schools, which is just another way to say there is a market for them. Generally speaking, the US legal system imposes premises liability on property owners whose negligence (or willful conduct) results in someone getting injured on that property. This arose conceptually through common law courts and juries applying general negligence concepts,

We accord different degrees of legal responsibility (“duty”) to landowners based on the identity of the injured party: a trespasser, for example, has less recourse to sue for injury than a business invitee (i.e., a customer). The law considers whether the injured party had a legitimate purpose being there, and in some cases whether they contributed to their injury through their own negligence. The duty to make one’s property safe from a particular harm relates to, and in a sense hinges on, the foreseeability of that harm. Leaving spilled milk in a grocery aisle too long could well subject the owner to paying damages for a shopper who suffers a fall — a fall that was quite predictable and clearly caused by the wet floor. But intentional criminal acts by a third party, much like acts of God, generally absolve the property owner of liability. After all, no shooter ever entered the grocery before, so why must the owner guard against this most unlikely event?

But should a public school district have a higher duty to keep students safe than the grocer has for shoppers? Arguably yes, in that society values children’s lives, well-being, and innocence perhaps more than adults. And we force children into school attendance via truancy laws and meddling protective services agencies. Furthermore, are school shootings now foreseeable even though they remain exceedingly rare? Does the media attention and notoriety given to such shootings change the calculus? At some point, perhaps today, school shootings could become foreseeable in the eyes of a jury. We can’t necessarily draw conclusions here, but the question is whether the owners of public schools — generally municipal or county school districts — should be immune from lawsuits for school shootings simply because they are political subdivisions of states? Should sovereign immunity apply to them, or should they be forced to consider security measures just as private owners must? After all, it seems clear that a mass shooting at a prestigious private school would result in litigation.

It seems clear that imposing tort liability on school owners and operators, even government owners, would both improve security and provide a ready source of compensation for the families of victims. Private security agencies, which have a market reputation to develop or protect, almost certainly would provide more efficient service than government police — for the simple reason that more crime punishes their bottom line, while it often creates calls for increased police budgets. And private security models like Disneyland benefit from wanting to create a peaceful and happy environment, where security forces have every incentive not to escalate situations or incur liability. Furthermore, private insurance models could help schools rationally allocate funds relative to the risks involved. Since school shootings are rare, premiums to cover such an event should be constrained. But other lesser types of crime in schools could be insured against as well, helping administrators better understand what they’re up against. And insurance companies would bend over backward to offer advice on avoiding shootings, since they would bear the cost of liability payments.

Admittedly, public schools using taxpayer funds to hire private security and pay insurance premiums muddies the waters. But at least it moves all of the parties involved — school districts, administrators, teachers, security providers, and parents — toward a market-based approach to safer schools. Tort liability, however imperfectly administered by government courts, offers one way to align the interests of parents and school owners in preventing further horrific events. A rational system of private security and criminal control would focus on market solutions that actually reduce crime generally and provide meaningful compensation to victims. In other words, it would focus on prevention and restitution. The marketplace can provide both far better than the state, with its amorphous and broken system of criminal justice and mass incarceration — paid for by the taxpayers it claims to represent as “the people” in criminal cases.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

UknownPlayer

thank you but many of your comments are too long to expect many on here to read. I actually had to deal with your latest comment by using text-speech. More like a podcast than a "comment!"

Too many facts to try and absorb at once. But at least I did listen.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What nonsense.

Young people these days would use any excuse to cut classes.

March on your own free time, not during school hours.

During school hours they are too busy getting shot at.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It’s taking action where you live and putting as many obstacles to unconstitutional laws in place as you can – right now, and before any new ones arise

One should probably understand what is an unconstitutional law first.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

UKnownPlayer

Apologize for the long post. Please understand I come from military background as we need to be thorough with our thoughts to try and best cover almost every angle as well as in addition to my economical global perspective from writing tons and tons of thesis during my uni days at Yale.

I guess I need to be more blunt and a sergeant major on the parade ground. Most every long comments will be passed over by the majority of reader since JT isn't a university and just because you wrote thesis at your uni quite frankly so did I and tens of hundreds on this forum and that's how we got to graduate too.

Long winded comments overloaded with facts just don't deliver the bread on this forum.

Suggest you regroup before you next planned attack, please!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Unknownplayer: kind of long but really valuable insight in there as well as actual solutions. it is mostly "too long" because it doesnt have any anything negative about "the orange dotard" in it. If you had attacked and blamed Trump for all of it, most people would have read and enjoyed every word, regardless of length.

I simply want a solution that can be implemented now. Otherwise its just people talking aimlessly until the next one happens, just like every other time.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It goes without saying that the Second Amendment leaves no room for the feds to handle this issue; it is clearly left to the states, per the 10 Amendment

You clearly have zero understanding of Second Amemdment and Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 it is mostly "too long" because it doesnt have any anything negative about "the orange dotard" in it. If you had attacked and blamed Trump for all of it, most people would have read and enjoyed every word, regardless of length.

There's that omniscience again.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Blacklabel

@Unknownplayer: kind of long but really valuable insight 

1,000 words are not a comment, but in fact a short essay regardless of its content....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

1000 words of anti-trump that’s easy reading! All of you read all 37 pages of the latest indictment looking for something to blame Trump for, didn’t you? I did but I couldn’t find anything, maybe next time!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

so no comments on CNN publicly calling one of the survivors a liar in public? I thought we are supposed to not challenge anything any of them says or else we are insensitive?

The kid Colton Haab actually saved people, didn’t hide in a closet doing anti-gun interviews in a full volume voice while an active shooting going on.

He’s a liar but the other 4 get on tv anytime to say anything, can call Rubio a killer, push Dem talking points etc. strange to me.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

1000 words of anti-trump that’s easy reading! All of you read all 37 pages of the latest indictment looking for something to blame Trump for, didn’t you?

First, equating indictments with internet comments is utter ridiculous. Deriding people for taking an interest in an investigation related to voting is a bit much.

I did but I couldn’t find anything, maybe next time!

Self-derision?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

*utterly

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Blacklabel

so no comments on CNN publicly

are you aware, no one in Japan even watches CNN?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

are you aware, no one in Japan even watches CNN?

That's a bold statement coming from an Internet poster. All do respect, eh.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

are you aware, no one in Japan even watches CNN?

I do.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tommy Jones - So if a psychopath only has access to a bolt action rifle, they are as dangerous as a psychopath with access to an assault rifle? If this were remotely true, machine guns would not have been invented.

The Columbine mass murderers planted bombs in the school and positioned themselves outside in order to shoot their fellow students as they fled the school building. The monsters later re-entered the school building to throw homemade pipe bombs.

The Boston marathon bombers filled pressure cookers with explosives in order to murder as many people as possible.

The Oklahoma City bomber fill a truck with explosives in order to destroy an entire building and everyone in it.

The 9-11 monsters used box cutters and the threat of having bombs in order to hijack four planes and crashed those planes in order to kill as many people as they possibly could.

Not one of them used a machine gun.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not one of them used a machine gun.

Shall we list all of those who did?

You have some weird logic. We shouldn't get rid of A, because people also used B. Um, yeah, and tell us more about the price of tea in China. But in the meantime, we're talking about A, and how people are using A to murder kids in school, and how maybe we should look at how to deal with A so that more kids aren't murdered in school with A. We can talk about B when we are talking about B. Mmmkay?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul

three of those acts you have listed were acts of terrorism and not domestic mass shootings like happened at the Florida school.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The odd logic of the gun cult.

Anything to hang onto their weapons of mass murder. No straw is too flimsy or bizarre to clutch at.

Well, why not, then?

Scrap the archaic second amendment and outlaw the NRA.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland - Today 08:49 am JST - Not one of them used a machine gun.

Shall we list all of those who did?

You have some weird logic. We shouldn't get rid of A, because people also used B.

It was Tommy Jones who mentioned machine guns. I was responding to his post.

I'll take you up on your kind offer. Please make a list of all of the mass murders committed with machine guns. FYI - The AR-15 is not a machine gun.

Are you trying to stop mass murders, or are you trying to ban firearms in the U.S.? It looks like you are trying to use a mass shooting to ban firearms in the U.S.. Except for not being able to convince enough votes in the U.S. to carry out your plans, I think you're doing a very adequate job of keeping busy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

zichi - three of those acts you have listed were acts of terrorism and not domestic mass shootings like happened at the Florida school.

Are you saying that mass murders don't count, and you want to limit the discussion to mass shootings, because that might help you convince U.S. voters to repeal the 2nd Amendment, ban the NRA, recall Trump, and place Hillary on a Whitehouse throne? None of that is possible, and the arguments for them don't sound very convincing except, maybe, to yellow dog Democrats.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Toasted Heretic - Scrap the archaic second amendment and outlaw the NRA.

You don't have the votes to accomplish either objective. Have you thought about moving to the U.S.A. and running for Congress? I don't believe you're eligible to be POTUS.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul

Are you saying that mass murders don't count, 

The posts have been about a mass shooting at the Florida school and how and why that happened and that could be done to prevent it happening again.

Its not about mass murders, terrorism, numbers dying from heart attacks and cancers.

because that might help you convince U.S. voters to repeal the 2nd Amendment,

I don't think you or I or anyone on JT has that level of clearance or have you forgotten its only a forum?

yellow dog Democrats.

guess I'm happy I'm not a democrat then, with your name calling but tell me, does Trump's five times draft dodging also make him a yellow dog?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichi - yellow dog Democrats.

guess I'm happy I'm not a democrat then, with your name calling but tell me, does Trump's five times draft dodging also make him a yellow dog?

LOL .  Hardly an insult.

"Yellow Dog Democrats" was a political term applied to voters in the Southern United States who voted solely for candidates who represented the Democratic Party. The term originated in the late 19th century. These voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican". The term is now more generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight party ticket under any circumstances. The South Carolina Democratic Party and Mississippi Democratic Party, among other state parties, continue to use the phrase to refer to committed members of the Democratic Party in the "Yellow Dog Club."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat

Democrats even call themselves "Yellow dog Democrats".

Party Loyalists

The Yellow Dog Democrats comprise our party's most loyal and ardent supporters.

https://www.mississippidemocrats.org/yellowdogsnew

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichi - The posts have been about a mass shooting at the Florida school and how and why that happened and that could be done to prevent it happening again.

Its not about mass murders, terrorism, numbers dying from heart attacks and cancers.

The primary issue is mass murders, mass murderers, and how to stop them.

You may prefer that people ignore mass murders, and concentrate on mass shootings, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

arrestpaul

this post and all the opted here on the Florida shooting have been about that mass shooting which turned into a mass murder and nor par se about all mass murders.

the discussions here and in the media have been about how to reduce those mass shootings by improving the gun controls.

you are only one introducing mass murders.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We have different priorities. I would like to see something done to end mass murders. Mass murders include mass shootings. Your priority seems to banning firearms in the U.S. by limiting the conversation to mass shootings. That won't stop mass murders.

There were more than enough warning signs from the latest psychopath. School authorities, local, county, state, and federal authorities could have pushed to place this psychopath into a mental health facility for an evaluation. Banning a psychopath's firearm doesn't make him any less of a psychopath.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites