When the Children Lead...

Bullshit. If they were so moved, they'd stop selling guns period. My guess is somebody crunched the numbers and figured out they don't sell a lot of guns to people under 21 and decided it would be a good p.r. move to get out ahead of this. But enjoy the kool aid they mixed up for you. 

It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them.

And Hounder is right; this is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt.

You want to debate maturity with Trump as your flag bearer?  Ok.  Let's go.

lol thom a racist sexual predator sets your agenda. haha you sick fuck. 

Thom, 17 year-olds are not setting the agenda. Sensible gun regulation has long been a goal of the majority of Americans.  I believe that you're smart enough to understand this, but you need  to misrepresent the facts in order to criticize "the left."  

 

 

 

Even more surprisingly Walmart did the same thing

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-walmart-firearms-ammun...

generation assault rifle at it again  

>> It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them.

Yep, it does...

I couldn't be more proud of what the motivated 17 year olds are doing to get involved with politics.

Remember Vietnam?

 

You should fear the youth Thom, but not because they're gonna grab your pussy.

 

They're gonna do bigger and better things for their generation and the country, than the shit stain, 5 deferment, fuck wad treason weasel of a president you voted for and defend to his bitter end.

What are they doing about wages and housing?

Lol T.o.d. using the bold font

This internet is serious business

>> This internet is serious business

Must be for you to leave your well thought out comment with the obligatory "lol".

 

 

 

 

>> It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them. <<

LOL...they are the wheels on the car that was already built. A fresh set of tires, so to speak.

thom is on the side of big business, plutocrats, robber barons, & militarists.

 

 

It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them.

so you dont think they have the mental capacity to participate in the political process but they are good to go for owning assault rifles? are you fucking retarded?

No one needs these retailers. Just buy gun online and have it shipped to a FFL dealer. Only costs an extra $25 or so and the selection is much better.

It's a good barometer on current public opinion, ender. Private businesses are more quick to adapt than the DC bubble. Buckle up.

Was Dick's ever a contender?  Publicity move.

 

Hounder nailed it in the second post.

Also, much better deals to be had at gun shows than retailers.  No overhead of running a 100,000 sq ft store, just a booth for the weekend. I saw a new Sig P320 for almost $200 less than big box stores.

It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them.<<<

Old white guys are wrong on just about everything. FACT

So, Burr and Hamilton are the voice of reason on guns? Let's get those Parkland kids dueling!

Gotta laugh at the 'drinking the kool aid brah, watch out for everyone' paranoia. Of course big biz isn't your friend - that's 101 - but would you rather nothing be done? Should we start up the conversation again after the next mass shooting? If you think that they would stop selling guns altogether you're ridiculously niave and isn't a realistic solution to this problem.

So what are the children accomplishing? What should they continue?

So, Burr and Hamilton are the voice of reason on guns? Let's get those Parkland kids dueling!<<<

Not a fan of Hamilton (Burr even less), but recognize he was a "genius" in some respects ... particularly with respect to jump starting the financial structure.

Regardless, Thom had made a general statement.

The children are keeping up awareness, keeping pressure on politicians, becoming politically active, raising their voices.  I believe that children are the future.  Teach them well and let them lead the way.

Let the children lose it
Let the children use it
Let all the children boogie

Dick's did the same thing about 10 years ago. Wonder why they started selling them again

Apparently high schoolers believe all sorts of rights go too far:

http://neatoday.org/2017/02/16/first-amendment-high-schools/

From the article Ender cited.  It has more than pictures.

The national study of 11,998 high school students and 726 teachers – the sixth such survey the Foundation has conducted since 2005 – found that 91 percent of students said it was important to be able to “express unpopular opinions,” up from 83 percent who felt that way in 2004. First Amendment support is highest among students who had a class that dealt with the First Amendment and used digital media on a regular basis.

“This year’s study paints a very favorable picture of the future of the First Amendment,” said Kenneth Dautrich, author of the report and president of The Stats Group. “Today’s high school students are more supportive of free expression rights than any we’ve surveyed in the past.”

 

>> Dick's did the same thing about 10 years ago. Wonder why they started selling them again <<

They stopped selling them at their Dick's stores, but kept selling them at their "Field & Stream" brand stores.

>>  “Today’s high school students are more supportive of free expression rights than any we’ve surveyed in the past.”

The polls showed they are still far behind adults in respecting fundamental rights (over several years of polling). Glad it's trending that way though.

They also lag behind in height, weight, earnings, etc.  They're growing.  

It says a lot about the contemporary left that they're willing to let 17 year olds set their agenda for them.<<<

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-...

To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789

DEAR SIR,

-- I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of paying.

What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those on a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st year of their self dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations changing daily, by daily deaths and births, have one constant term beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors.Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states that 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened. Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows. 1st. it will consist constantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. 2dly. of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 4thly. it will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. and the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.

To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10.000 milliards of livres and that the whole had been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sum would be 500 milliards, which is said to be the whole rent-roll, or nett proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors. Again suppose Louis XV. and his contemporary generation had said to the money lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19. years, you shall then forever after receive an annual interest of 100 pound at a compound interest of 6 per cent makes at the end of 19 years an aggregate of principal and interest of pound 252.14 the interest of which is a pound 12 degrees degrees. 12 " . 7 d. which is nearly 12". per. cent on the first capital of pound 100.')">(*) 12.'5 per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator, without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral, flowing from the will of the society which has found it convenient to appropriate the lands become vacant by the death of their occupant on the condition of a paiment of his debts; but that between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another."

The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of it's rent-roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough; and so becomes a question merely of honor or expediency. But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19. years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding.

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19. years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they or their ancestors have purchased, are in the case of bona fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.

Turn this subject in your mind, my Dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts, and develope it with that perspicuity and cogent logic which is so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied as a theoretical speculation; but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude, at the threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinous errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means not sanctioned by nature for binding in chains their fellow-men. We have already given, in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease principal and interest, within the time of our own lives. Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copy rights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years

an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide instead of English precedents, the habit of which fetters us, with all the political herecies of a nation, equally remarkable for it's encitement from some errors, as long slumbering under others. I write you no news, because when an occasion occurs I shall write a separate letter for that.

Can they march over to Russia when they're done? 

 

Vladimir Putin Releases Video Simulation Of Russian Missiles Striking Florida

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vladimir-putin-video-missiles-flori...

Who’s drinking the Kool Aid?<<<

Apparently, Thom.

It was the kids that brought an end to vietnam, and sped up desegregation. We would be missing a bunch more family members and neighbors if they hadn't of stood up, and it took the shit actually hitting the fan in the streets, to really spin the wheels of change.

Kent State 47yrs ago. History has shown that schools @ guns now have a history now. Someone once said that people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Drinking the kool aid has nothing to do with buying shit at Dicks, and of course you know that. It has to do with buying their line of bullshit about how they came to their decision.

The old excuse of not doing something because it won't make a difference is dead. We know that any progress is better than no progress. 

Ok, Bri. We'll agree to disagree then. Honestly I think none of it matters anyway. If someone wants to go shoot up a school, then they will. No law or corporate sales practice will change that. We can talk about it again next time it happens.

What's you favorite founding farther correspondence, face?

And eventually the next ones will start being done more with AKs and the tally will be more and more, and we will discuss again and do nothing again and that is the sad reality

Favorite correspondence, the Clinton Dick pics, you know they are out there

It's a sad world man.

https://youtu.be/WnoadNUs1gQ?t=38s

Where do these children get money? 

I don't know why money matters. I'm a service worker. 

It's a tossup:

Jefferson <---> Adams (after they "made up")

Jefferson <---> Madison

How do they pay for a campaign going forward? 

Teachers are on strike over paycheck to paycheck struggles. 

How do the kids get to DC? 

Will the campaign continue after their march? In what form?

Go fund yourself.

Im just engaging in civil discourse, Schwa. No reason to get upset with me. 

>>>>>>If someone wants to go shoot up a school, then they will. No law or corporate sales practice will change that.

 

 

Yep.  Because there’s too many guns in our country.

I begrudge the students by asking questions?

Too much of everything is just enough