The US has had 57 times as many school shootings as other major industrialized nations combined

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
Repeal the 2nd because the media has convinced you there is no other solution?

What about the first?

I think the first has a problem too. I think we need to seriously reduce anonymous speech, while at the same time strengthening free speech protections.

Who would you trust to further the erosion of constitutional rights?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Aazadan

How do you enforce a ban on anonymous speech? What would be the consequences for violating such a ban? Like the anti-gun position, it makes no sense whatsoever.

You go after book publishers, web hosts, magazines, newspapers, etc... they must verify the identity of whoever writes content (with a couple whistleblower exemptions), extend this to platforms like facebook and forums like ATS as well. If identities of content producers aren't verified and publicly accessible, then fine the company until they either comply or go out of business.

I don't want any restrictions on what people can say aside from the usual libel and slander. And in fact I want even stronger press and free speech protections for any truthful material. However, we've reached a point where too much information is unverifiable. The internet should no longer be anonymous (for the most part). Truth is an absolute defense, and this would make our media more truthful.

As far as enforcement goes, China managed to do it. We can do the same thing and block any website that doesn't submit to our regulations.

originally posted by: JinMI
Who would you trust to further the erosion of constitutional rights?

I don't see it as an erosion. I see the First as being insufficient for modern day speech. People like Snowden and Manning should be protected under the First. Agents like Russia shouldn't have access to our media (or if they do, their viewers need to know exactly who the propaganda they're listening to is coming from).

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Giving this is a percentage I am assuming they took into account that we probably have more schools than most as well.

a reply to: Aazadan

then fine the company until they either comply or go out of business.

And you expect people to agree to your gun control measures?



This is great.

I love it when leftists reveal themselves for the little pseudo-dictators they have wet dreams about.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
Repeal the 2nd because the media has convinced you there is no other solution?

What about the first?

I think the first has a problem too. I think we need to seriously reduce anonymous speech, while at the same time strengthening free speech protections.

Who would you trust to further the erosion of constitutional rights?

I think he's gonna need robots.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
Who would you trust to further the erosion of constitutional rights?

I don't see it as an erosion. I see the First as being insufficient for modern day speech. People like Snowden and Manning should be protected under the First. Agents like Russia shouldn't have access to our media (or if they do, their viewers need to know exactly who the propaganda they're listening to is coming from).

And who would be this arbiter of speech? Should we also have a firewall for international peekers?

a reply to: underpass61

I suppose we will all find out what genocide feels like then!

originally posted by: JinMI
And who would be this arbiter of speech? Should we also have a firewall for international peekers?

Legislate it and let government handle it. Just as they handle constitutional issues now. That's pretty much their purpose.

a reply to: Aazadan

Let the government handle what speech is classified as hate and who can hear what speech?

I vaguely recall this happening before in other parts of the world and not working out so well.

Gang bangers having a shootout behind an abandoned Detroit school is not a "school shooting". The op is drinking the msm koolaid again...

If guns are the problem explain Honduras. The entire country is a gun free zone yet somehow every criminal has one...

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I would like to point out that OP has posted and run. I assume they will not be a part of this convo anymore than posting some bull# and not accounting for any of the rebuttals that have been brought forth, showing that this info is not only inflated to push an agenda of gun confiscation, but also to push the blame away from things like anti-depression meds and the media pushing their identity politics to divide us into neat little groups to have us bickering at eachother.

Yeah, I scrolled to about page 4 and no sign of SG. Unless they are posting on an alt troll account. I know, that's a redundant statement.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well, your France metric is entirely wrong...here is one incident that I do remember from 2012

"On 19 March, four people, including three children, were killed at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish day school in Toulouse. Four other persons were wounded."

a reply to: JAY1980


Or if I decide to go to a school after hours and give myself a double tap to the back of the head, its also classified as a school shooting even though not a single student, or faculty member was at risk.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, guns are not the problem.

Look at the statistics for violent crimes. Even IF school shootings are higher, other violent crimes are far lower thanks to our pro-gun culture and Constitution. There are plenty of options for securing schools, including arming teachers or security upgrades (at the cost of cutting unneeded classes curriculum, cutting the lowest performing students from the roster, etc)

Fortunately, you can whine til the sun doesn't shine. Even if you abolished the second amendment, it wouldn't take any rights away from us: the Constitution doesn't give anyone rights, simply enumerates a second layer of protections against government infringement.

Come and take it.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Aazadan

Let the government handle what speech is classified as hate and who can hear what speech?

I vaguely recall this happening before in other parts of the world and not working out so well.

It's happened in the US before and worked out fine. Electing competent people to office is part of having a functioning government. Garbage in, garbage out. Works the other way around too, when you fill offices with good people, good things happen.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The USA has tons of Blacks and Hispanics who are responsible for 95% of the crime. If we sent these to other countries, they would have high crime rates too. Now the UK has muslims causing large amount of crimes without the use of guns (more murders than New York City). The USA doesn't have much Muslim crime because there aren't that many Muslims, we vet new immigrants, the current muslims who have been here awhile have been accumulated to our society and are not problems.

a reply to: Aazadan

It certainly has not happened in the US. There is no such thing as "hate speech" in the United States, nor will there be. It is directly at odds with our natural, unalienable, god-given right of free speech/press.

If the USA were to ban or remove all schools then school shootings would be at zero percent.

Isn't the life of one child worth it?

We have to do *something*.

If you're against banning schools then you're for the murder of innocent children.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Aazadan

It certainly has not happened in the US. There is no such thing as "hate speech" in the United States, nor will there be. It is directly at odds with our natural, unalienable, god-given right of free speech/press.

You've never heard of hate crimes?