you're "rights" were written by people who believed black pple were 3/5's of a person. How do you feel about that? Also, gun control isn't taking away your guns , it's putting reasonable restrictions on what guns can be sold to the public. Do you think the fact you have to be 21 to by booze is a violation of your rights? smh... you're talking about kids who witnessed a fkin massacre in their school and now they want to do something about it. Were they "tricked" into protesting by almost getting shot to death?...Another mofo in the NRA's pocket. At least the politician's get paid by them. People like you do their bidding for free.

>you're "rights" were written by people who believed black pple were 3/5's of a person. How do you feel about that?

I thank God that they created the freest country ever known, one where you can insult its founders without fear of criminal sanctions, aren't you? If someone owned slaves we should throw all of our rights away? how exactly does that make any sense?

>Also, gun control isn't taking away your guns , it's putting reasonable restrictions on what guns can be sold to the public.

Wrong, it's about taking away my guns. The AG in my state declared that all the people who legally own certain guns are felons if they don't get rid of them. A former SC justice just called to ban all semi auto guns and repeal the second amendment, the whole bullshit "no one is coming after your guns" line has jumped the shark. The anti civil rights folks have stopped that charade.

>Do you think the fact you have to be 21 to by booze is a violation of your rights?

You have no right to buy booze.

>smh... you're talking about kids who witnessed a fkin massacre in their school and now they want to do something about it.

Hogg didn't witness anything. They don't want to do anything about it, not even willing to wear a nametag, they want to ban guns, something which won't prevent any shootings.

> Were they "tricked" into protesting by almost getting shot to death?
No, they were desperate for attention, as kids are, and so they were used by Soros and Bloomberg and the like to push their agenda, the term for these kids is "useful idiots".

>Another mofo in the NRA's pocket. At least the politician's get paid by them. People like you do their bidding for free.

So which industry lobbies/ advertises on the evening news more, the drug industry or the gun industry?
whose products kill more Americans?
why is there no march for that? Whose bidding are you doing for free?

Your reply is far more interesting than your article... Can i just ask one question? Do you think that there should be any restrictions at all on guns? For example, age limits, mental health checks, background checks.... any limits or controls at all? I feel like there has to be ground for reasonable people to meet half way on this issue... i'm not against people having guns, but i don't want my crazy ass neighbor who's on xanex and wine all day to have an arsenal in the shed. Maybe it's his "right," but at what point do you lose your rights? Or at what point is your right to bear arms limited?
And I agree with you about the pharmaceutical industry. There should be marches against that. I'm not marching for either bcuz i'm a lazy piece of sh*t and i don't like big groups of people that get together to chant. It creeps me out. But the thing is, big Pharm is motivated by the same thing as the gun industry....it has nothing to do with rights, or health, or citizen safety....It's just profit. That's all...

>Your reply is far more interesting than your article... Can i just ask one question?

of course, or even 5 if you want.

>Do you think that there should be any restrictions at all on guns?

Guns are inanimate objects, thus restrictions on them are ineffective at best.

>For example, age limits, mental health checks, background checks.... any limits or controls at all?

none of those things have positive effects, why would I support them?
My friend's father, an immigrant, took the Boston T to Sears to buy a rifle by himself when he was 10 years old and no one worried about school shootings. What you need to consider is that none of those policies keep those who have ill intent from acquiring weapons, not at all. No one gets arrested when they fail a background check right?

> I feel like there has to be ground for reasonable people to meet half way on this issue... i'm not against people having guns, but i don't want my crazy ass neighbor who's on xanex and wine all day to have an arsenal in the shed. Maybe it's his "right," but at what point do you lose your rights?

There is your problem bro, you are too worried about what is in your neighbor's shed, that's none of your business. You want to take away his rights based on your feelings. I have an irrational fear of circus clowns, they scare me but does that mean I should try to restrict their rights? In America someone's rights end when they commit a crime, then we punish that person, you want to punish everyone including your innocent neighbor when they haven't done anything wrong.

>Or at what point is your right to bear arms limited?

when it harms another, like your right to free speech or any other basic right, when is your right to free speech limited?

>And I agree with you about the pharmaceutical industry. There should be marches against that. I'm not marching for either bcuz i'm a lazy piece of sh*t and i don't like big groups of people that get together to chant. It creeps me out. But the thing is, big Pharm is motivated by the same thing as the gun industry....it has nothing to do with rights, or health, or citizen safety....It's just profit. That's all...

So why do you think there are marches against one but not the other?

As reasonable people we should agree that so called "gun violence" is caused by things that "may cause suicidal thoughts or actions" and by the prohibition of drugs, which is the direct cause of most gun homicides, right?
So maybe the best policies to pursue would be to end the prohibition of drugs and improve mental healthcare right?
Why don't you have a march about the cops and FBI not doing their jobs?
Why should them failing to do their jobs result in more gun laws?

I have to commend you on superb comments. I appreciate you meeting halfway here. Clearly there is no halfway to losing rights. You either have them, or they don't exist.

Thanks!

That's one thing that is so annoying, the idea that every time someone commits a crime then I am supposed to compromise my rights, yet they never want to expand gun rights at all. What kind of compromise is that?

I reckon that's proof of their malign intent.

Given how much good personal arms do, and the wide availability of evidence of that good, that there is no push to increase private firearms ownership by law-abiding folks demonstrates that improving matters isn't their goal.

When private firearms possession has been advocated, such as in Florida in the '90s, good results ensued. Florida had a spate of rapes. They told women to strap up. Rape stopped.

EZ PZ

yup, in the early 90s only a handful of states allowed concealed carry and the rate of firearms homicides was double what it is now that all states allow concealed carry.

here are signs #6
#7
#8

Hi @tftproject
Excellent article. I subscribed to your blog. I will follow your news.
I will be grateful if you subscribe to my blog @user2627
Good luck to you!