Video: 15-Year-Old Girl Defends Second Amendment

[packerbacker]

Whether their parents gave the OK or not is NOT my point here. Native said "Using a child to deliver that message - shameful!" Nothing about parent's ok or anything and to that statement YOU agreed. Read back a little.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[packerbacker]

See post 52

 

[beepbeepin]

I doubt she was forced. Kids that age are very passionate about what they believe in. One thing i will take issue with you on is you calling her a woman. Make that mistake in another context and you could be in serious trouble!

Dude!!! that's disgusting you even thought that's what I meant. What I meant was she sounds very intelligent for her age. When I was throwing concrete forms in a ditch a 13 years old the guys around me didn't consider me a boy but a man. It's what you can deliver at such a young age that makes you more of an adult. Get it now?

 

[Native Floridian]

Rebel, for all we know her parents could have been paid to let her do this. There is no way to know if they approve the Viral video exposure she has received.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Thank you, got it!

One question about poking a mod with a stick thing - if a mod enters a debate on the open board can we respond to their comments as we would any other member? That is, if we agree can we say we agree? if we disagree, can we say we disagree? Or, would that be considered poking a stick at the mod?

If members were banned for disagreeing with my opinion half on this forum would be banned. Stock, Dani, rebel, even Crispin who is a friend disagrees all the time.

Do not attack any mod or how forums are moderated, moderation is not open for debate or discussion except through PMs.

As mention before, what a member calls a ball a mod may call a strike, what a member sees as home run mod may see as an out or even thrown out of game......

That is where the stick poking comes in to play, members trying to bend the interpretation of rules thinking it makes it okay, example typing f***k still violates rules as if typed out,...

Challenging how any mod moderates is automatic strike and it may already be down to a two strike 2 out game depending on the inning.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Native Floridian]

Dude!!! that's disgusting you even thought that's what I meant. What I meant was she sounds very intelligent for her age. When I was throwing concrete forms in a ditch a 13 years old the guys around me didn't consider me a boy but a man. It's what you can deliver at such a young age that makes you more of an adult. Get it now?

I can only go by what you wrote. Unfortunately, many men mistake teenaged minor females for women. Still, i put a smiley face on my post. No biggie, have a beer, relax!

 

[beepbeepin]

I can only go by what you wrote. Unfortunately, many men mistake teenaged minor females for women. Still, i put a smiley face on my post. No biggie, have a beer, relax!

Many men? Well I'm one of the few out there that don't think like that. And yes I do like beer and I will have one when I get home. If you want one too, stop by I got extras. Lol

 

[packerbacker]

I would call her a young woman and not have a problem with it anymore than I would have a problem calling a 15-year old boy a young man. Where's the problem here? I'm sure she had assistance in investigating her stats and I'm sure she was given some points to emphasize but, as someone hoping for a possible shooting scholarship, she does have a vested interest in the subject. Our elected officials have help with their speeches as well although Pelosi and Biden MUST write their own stuff. That's the only explanation!

 

[Dave44]

I see a big difference in her post and the kids held up to make a point in gun control.

How many very young children do control advocates hold up as a shield to make their point? I bet I could point out quite a few. All knee jerk laws are "for the children".

I bet that it can be even more gruesome than that. As a matter of fact I know it, and you do too. Please do not make me post these examples

 

[Chadeaux]

I see a big difference in her post and the kids held up to make a point in gun control.

How many very young children do control advocates hold up as a shield to make their point? I bet I could point out quite a few. All knee jerk laws are "for the children".

I bet that it can be even more gruesome than that. As a matter of fact I know it, and you do too. Please do not make me post these examples

The biggest difference is quite simple:

The young lady was allowed to speak her mind.

When What's his name used kids, they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. They MUST REMAIN SILENT, lest they show up the king.

 

[Chadeaux]

@Chadeaux - Never liked this "stalker" business on here. I get it a lot myself from some. It's just silly. We all come here to read the forums and in doing so we read the posts, then if we have something to say we comment and move onto the next thread. It's just natural behaviour. Giving someone a "stalker" tag is the same as someone telling me i'm "jealous" because i don't live in America. Silly and a petty retort!

Well, I hate to say it --- but since it was definitely happening I will say what is true.

Dano, we disagree about a lot of things. Unfortunately, this is one of them. When someone follow you around for a week and every time you post the post following your is theirs --- what else could it be?

I'm at a loss, but very very happy I'm not a mod because then I would have to read all of their drivel.

TH, you're a better man than I am.

 

[Dano Sverige]

Dont give yourself credit

How surprising, you answering a question with a thinly veiled insult. In fact it isn't even thinly veiled lol.

However...at the risk of having the thread locked like the last two times someone put you on the spot by asking you to explain yourself.....i'll ask again:

Who was your post aimed at if not at Stocky's "GE" mispell?

 

[0121stockpicker]

How surprising, you answering a question with a thinly veiled insult. In fact it isn't even thinly veiled lol.

However...at the risk of having the thread locked like the last two times someone put you on the spot by asking you to explain yourself.....i'll ask again:

Who was your post aimed at if not at Stocky's "GE" mispell?

Thanks dano but no worries. I'm certainly used to the insults and personal attack. Remember in a discussion or debate when a person resorts to an ad hominem attack it is only a sign that they person has no relevant points to make (beyond the fact that it is just incredibly immature). It's common enough that there is a term for it.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2]Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6] from wiki.

In the end when a person resorts to this they have "lost" the argument beyond showing their lack of maturity. But my guess is that some of the folks on here just dont know any other way. Best.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Whether their parents gave the OK or not is NOT my point here. Native said "Using a child to deliver that message - shameful!" Nothing about parent's ok or anything and to that statement YOU agreed. Read back a little.

I have... STILL may be a LEGAL problem. She's only 15; did VERY well before Maryland "committee".

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Rebel, for all we know her parents could have been paid to let her do this. There is no way to know if they approve the Viral video exposure she has received.

EXACTLY the point!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

The biggest difference is quite simple:

The young lady was allowed to speak her mind.

When What's his name used kids, they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK. They MUST REMAIN SILENT, lest they show up the king.

You know THAT as a fact...?

 

[Chadeaux]

I have... STILL may be a LEGAL problem. She's only 15; did VERY well before Maryland "committee".

I'm tired of this silliness Reb. So I'm going to give you a little "heads up" on "rights" to images and video:

If you are in a public place, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. So long as the individual who posts this image does not try to profit from it (i.e. try to sell it) he can do as he well pleases.

In the world of photography for fun and profit, you violate someone's "right of privacy" only when that person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If they are in their home, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they are in their neighbor's back yard, they again have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are walking on Coney Island with your mistress, however, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is why Disney can charge for the photos on their wild mountain ride. No one in that car had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Otherwise, there would not be so many bare breasts in the photos and every time they sold one, everyone else in the car would sue them.

Whenever you appear in a public forum (read governmental arena for public discussion for clarity), you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. There are cameras from both the governmental body as well as local media present. You can also expect, in our current society, that there will be other persons there with either video cameras or cell phones capable of taking video.

This video, based on the clarity, composition and viewing angle is probably video shot by a local news outlet from the area where the officials were seated. The parents can't stop it from being shown if they allowed her to speak. Likewise, since it is in a public forum, the only one who could sue for violation of their rights is the company who owns the equipment and shot the video. They can only do so if the poster violated fair usage by charging to view the video or by claiming that it was theirs instead of the property of the person/media outlet who shot it.

So, now you can rest at night knowing that no constitutional rights of this individual were violated, no laws have been broken, and your silly argument has been laid to rest.

 

[packerbacker]

Why are we wondering if the girl's parents gave anyone permission to videotape or record her image and voice? Is THAT the main point here or are we discussing the 2nd and how further gun control could possibly effect the girl's future? Are we going to discuss the stats she spoke of and gun control in general? It's like watching a clip of Shirley Temple and the main thing discussed by the viewers is wondering if her parents signed some papers or something. Geeezus!

 

[JSpinner]

Lol that 15 year old has more guts then most men I know for standing up there and delivering that speech. And I don't think she was forced to give that speech. sounds like a well educated woman who is standing up for her rights and her hobby.

Perhaps there is hope for the upcoming generation. This young lady is a true PATRIOT! Where are our fellow Patriots? Would they have the courage to stand up, too, or let a 15 yr. old GIRL expose their yellow streak down their backside? We can scream and yell till we lose our voices, yet we don't see our support. Why are they hiding and remaining silent? WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE PATRIOTS? This issue should have been tromped down by the citizens before it EVER got this far! Where is the uproar? ALL opposition officials should be trembling in their shoes for fear of being prosecuted for treason & betraying the oath they took to uphold our constitution. THEY LIED!
Even this young 15 yr. old girl understands what is at stake here... OUR FREEDOM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as AMERICANS. God Bless Her!

 

[Chadeaux]

Why are we wondering if the girl's parents gave anyone permission to videotape or record her image and voice? Is THAT the main point here or are we discussing the 2nd and how further gun control could possibly effect the girl's future? Are we going to discuss the stats she spoke of and gun control in general? It's like watching a clip of Shirley Temple and the main thing discussed by the viewers is wondering if her parents signed some papers or something. Geeezus!

It is a common disruption practice by the left. I apologize for getting off track, but I just got tired of the whining and tried to put it to rest.

As for the young lady, very composed, very deliberate and very articulate in her delivery of her message.

Despite what some will say, many young people are able to make decisions such as hers without being held at gunpoint (seems that is what some have suggested).

What upset them is that someone actually conducted parenting. She is an example of what can result when young people are taught to be polite, responsible and aware of their rights . . . as opposed to the current idea of letting the socialist teachers raise their kids to be leaches on society.