MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Kyle Kashuv, Parkland Survivor Turned Conservative Activist, on Gun Rights and Free Speech

"I get a lot of death threats, I don't even think I notice them anymore."

KashuvDouliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom"I'm basically going against the entire tide," Kyle Kashuv, a 16-year-old survivor of the Parkland mass shooting, told Reason in an interview. "Coming out in support of the Second Amendment right after a school shooting is no easy thing to do."

Unlike virtually all the other teen activists who have risen to prominence in the wake of the February 14 tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Kashuv is a conservative and a gun rights supporter. His strident Second Amendment advocacy has brought him national fame: he met President Trump, has been mentored by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, and now works at Turning Point USA, a major conservative organization that concentrates on outreach to high school and college students. (Turning Point's High School Leadership Summit, which features a range of high-profile conservative speakers including United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Donald Trump, Jr., is in Washington, D.C., from July 23 until 26. The organization has offered a scholarship so that interested Marjory Stoneman Douglas students can attend for free.)

But back at school, Kashuv has had a rougher time.

"I lost like 90 percent of all the friends I've had because of it," said Kashuv. "It's quite saddening because it shows that people just don't have the ability to be friends with people who have disagreeing opinions with them."

Kashuv has also been besieged by online criticism since he started publicizing his views on Twitter.

"I get a lot of death threats, I don't even think I notice them anymore," he said. "I reached a threshold of hate that there isn't much more that can be thrown at me that will affect me."

That's something he undoubtedly has in common with the rest of the Parkland kids. Fellow survivor-activists David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez have also faced waves of online harassment. In June, Hogg was the victim of a swatting attempt when someone sent police to his house in Florida in hopes law enforcement would mistake Hogg or his family as violent and use force against them.

Kashuv is going back to school in the fall for his senior year. But in the meantime, he's living the life of a teen activist while trying to learn everything he can about gun control as an issue. (He's also reading a lot of Jordan Peterson.)

On other subjects, he's still making up his mind.

"I'm really developing my viewpoint on conservatism," he said. "I'm just a big Constitution guy."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he's also very concerned about free speech in schools—a main issue for Turning Point USA, though other conservatives have accused the organization of being insincere on this front.

"I've had personal experience with this," said Kashuv. "I mean, people have completely tried to shun me and silence me on my high school campus. It's hard for conservatives to voice their support for the Second Amendment, in general and at Douglas, and I see how important it is to make sure we have free speech."

Photo Credit: Douliery Olivier/ABACA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rhywun||

    The only winning move is not to play.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Then why am I such a loser?

  • Harvard||

    Because you're such a player, slut.

  • Longtobefree||

    I know that quote

  • Don't look at me.||

    +1 war games

  • Conchfritters||

    Sounds like how I feel about playing chess.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Support the protected right of the People to keep and bear Arms. All Arms.

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  • Libertymike||

    Which means that convicted felons do not forfeit their right to keep and bear arms.

    It also means that one cannot, consistent with a good conscience, support any law enforcement officer or agency who or which supports any type of gun confiscation, licensing, or registration. In fact, all such law enforcement officers or agencies should be considered traitors to the constitution and immediately hung, without a trial.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I think this is the point at which you have to admit that no rights are absolute.... and fear being mistaken as a Hihn sock?

  • Libertymike||

    He doesn't even have me on his hate list.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    YET

  • Libertymike||

    You have no reason to worry - he is not going to put you on the list. You are too nice.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Awww shucks. *blushing*

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Ok, that's really weird, proving that you have no hate list by linking to your hate list.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Hihn is confused, as usual.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Un "hihnged", actually

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    PROUD to be Public Enemy #1 on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's "Hate List"!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Here is a copy and paste for your convenience, titled "The Sickest of the Sick Fucks"

    Red Rocks White Privilege (8)

    Sevo (7)

    mad.casual (5)

    Elias Fakaname (8) Yes Fakaname says I'm a fake name! (snort)

    BYOBD

    Unicorn Abattoir

    Chipper Morning Baculum

    Joe Blow124

    Red Rocks White Privilege (13)

    Procyon Rotor (2)

    MarkLastName (5)

    Weigel's Cock Ring (3)

    Tom Bombadil

    Nardz (6)

    loveconstitution1789 (7)

    migrant log chipper (3)

    Last of the Shitlords (11) "shitlord MEANS bigot, and he seems proud of being one.

    Hank Phillips

    Mr. Gus

    Faxsibnatibng

    Libertymike

    Sort of like being on the SPLC list, hateful but also cool for bragging rights

  • NOMAGA||

    You seem upset.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another bitchfit.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I think this is the point at which you have to admit that no rights are absolute...."""

    The thing I hate about that is it can be used to justify any abuse of rights.

  • Necron 99||

    Yeah, you forgot left-right=zero.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    A Right is absolute by definition, or it cannot be a Right. That is to say, that any Right that places a burden on another Right is NO Right at all.

    1) "There is no Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater."
    Yes there is. There is no protection for the Right to yell rire howerver, unless there is an actual fire.

    2) "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Can ANYONE disagree?
    Here's another possible brain explosion. The tip of the nose is a boundary that respects BOTH rights.. Got it? In the real world, how has that boundary been defined for centuries?
    The "tip of the nose" is a metaphor, not a boundary on Rights. The Right to swing your fist does not end at my nose, it just ends, as per my initial claim your fist places a burden on my Right to not be hit in the face, which invalidates your claim to that RIght to swing your fist.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Which means that convicted felons do not forfeit their right to keep and bear arms.

    You're not going to find too many people on these boards who don't believe felons should have their arms-bearing rights restored, as long as they've served out their sentence.

  • Libertymike||

    True, but a strict reading of the text does not admit of any exceptions, including convicted felons who have been paroled or convicted felons who get no jail time but probation. There are convicted felons who serve little or no time but do get whacked with onerous probation.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What about convicted felons that are still in prison?

    Fun fact: The 13th Amendment does not apply to felons.

  • IceTrey||

    Yes it does it says they can be enslaved as a punishment for their crime.

  • ThomasD||

    Not enslaved - slaves are property - and nobody can be bought or sold anymore.

    Involuntary servitude is the stated term.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    The "except as punishment for crime" exception would, grammatically, appear to apply to both slavery and involuntary servitude.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, Scalia explicitly denied being a consistent originalist.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There are people in these comments who don't think that felons should get their voting rights back, and guns can actually accomplish something.

  • Libertymike||

    What would Tony, the Rev. Kirkland, and Michael Hihn think about D'inesh D'Souza getting his gun rights back?

  • perlchpr||

    I dunno exactly, but I have a big smile on my face just thinking about it. :D

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I would just like to lock them up in a storage container together.

    Then drop the container in the middle of the ocean.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't keep from shitting his pants, but thinks he can blow someone's head off.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's going to throw his shit-filled diapers at me.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I thought that it was voting that didn't accomplish anything.

  • lap83||

    Felons don't accomplish anything and guns should be able to vote

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    any type of gun confiscation, licensing, or registration

    How does the Second Amendment forbid gun registration or gun licensing?

  • Libertymike||

    1. The licensing / registration is a de facto infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

    2. There is no gun licensing or registration power granted to the feds, and with the passage of the 14th amendment, the same applies to the states as a state statute requiring licensing / registration constitutes a violation of the 14th amendment.

    3. Perhaps the most important factor animating the creation of the 2nd amendment was to enable the clingers to check the state. Therefore, how can one reconcile gun licensing / registration with the purpose of the 2A?

  • DJK||

    1) Keeping and bearing arms is independent of licensing and registration.
    2) Feds: necessary and proper clause, commerce clause. States: not at all clear that the 14th incorporates the 2nd in the way you believe it does, given #1.
    3) See answer to #1.

    The Constitution is not nearly as libertarian a document as you (or I) would like.

  • Libertymike||

    Given the way it has been interpreted, you are right.

    But, using the interpretative canons employed by courts and supported in legal treatises, one could very easily and logically argue otherwise.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The interpretive canons employed by the courts have an implied "except for guns" clause. At least, it looks that way.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Ah yes, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause - the 2 clauses that nullify the rest of the Constitution.

  • JesseAz||

    Scalia said himself he wasn't a strict constitutionalist dummy.

  • mpercy||

    JUSTICE SCALIA: I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I'm not a "strict constructionist," despite the introduction. I don't like the term "strict construction." I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description "strict." I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    If you have a constitutional right to own a gun, why would you need a license?

  • Don't look at me.||

    And what good is a license? Besides just a way to raise money?

  • Longtobefree||

    Shall not be infringed.
    It is very clear.

  • Duke of url||

    If you have to pay to apply to beg some bureaucrat for revocable permission to exercise a right, the it is no longer a right.
    But then, I don't even believe sales tax on arms is constitutional.

  • DJK||

    There's a difference between what is considered a right from a libertarian standpoint and what is considered a permissible government action by the Constitution. What evidence can you present that a sales tax on arms (or anything, for that matter) is unconstitutional?

  • The Last American Hero||

    What does the word "infringe" mean?

  • JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy||

    Gotta love "liberty" people who advocate for the killing of folks without due process. They are almost as adorable as people who advocate that we need to violate the constitution in order to murder "traitors to the constitution".

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Bullying! Unprovoked aggression!

    Upthread I said that no rights are absolute. That's it, I'm starting a list!

  • JesseAz||

    Chris Jericho has a list you can add to.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Does this definition correctly express your belief in what unalienable means?

    unalienable

    adjective

    not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied

  • Ron||

    Brave kid. Amazing that it takes rare strength these days to go against the grain. I often wonder how many other student are pro 2a but are afraid to stand up to the all to real threats of violence by the left.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Death threats from those who don't have guns seem weak. Are they going to poison him or stab him?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    We know some of them have bike locks.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Or maybe just beat the shit out of him at school, you know, the gun free zone place.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    People who stand against populism for more freedom are the real heroes, in my book. It's really pretty easy to say I don't like what just happened, let's use government force to make sure it never happens again. It takes real guts (and principles) to say freedom is more important than some perception of safety and I'm not willing to let terrorist acts make me give up my freedom and principles.

    It's refreshing to see this, especially in a high-school aged kid.

  • John||

    I don't really see how populism has anything to do with it. Populism, whatever you think it means, is not the same as leftism. And whatever it is, this kid is standing up for a position that is supported by the majority of the population. Hard to see how taking a popular position is standing up to populism.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Not the majority of his peers, as it would seem. Maybe populism was a poor choice of words.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Populism is "whatever the people want".

    Sometimes, what the people want is leftism. Sometimes, what they want is rightism.

    When it comes to guns, a majority of the people want more gun control.

    Which is one reason why it's never a good idea to defend an idea based solely on the premise that "it's what the people want". Yeah the people want a lot of terrible things, collectively. They shouldn't have it, even if it means "elites" must thwart the will of the people.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

  • Just Say'n||

    All true points. But, can't it also be true that sometimes people who use the word "populism" with derision just mean that they don't want to listen to voters? Sometimes the populace is pushing for "more freedom". In the US, for instance, I think the populace is more accommodating to the notion of "free speech" then those who deride "populism".

    This is the problem with blanket classifications, though, what one person may identify as a "populis" or what "populism" is may be different from what another person would identify as "populism" or what "populism" means.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But, can't it also be true that sometimes people who use the word "populism" with derision just mean that they don't want to listen to voters?

    Yes, of course.

  • LarryA||

    Requiring background checks for all gun sales 92%

    I simply don't believe Gallup's numbers, because the law hasn't passed.

    Whatever you think of politicians, they know how to count votes. If 92% of people in the U.S. wanted the sky to be green, Congress would drop everything else they were doing and pass a Green-Skies Law. The President would sprain a wrist signing it.

    In addition, most of the state legislatures would also pass Green Skies legislation, and governors would sign it.

    The fact that neither Congress nor legislatures are even close to passing UBC laws, and in fact a majority of state legislatures are relaxing gun control, tells me that popular support for gun control laws is maybe half the voters.

    And it isn't that NRA is "buying" the representatives; considering that Michael Bloomberg alone is outspending the ILA several times over.

  • JesseAz||

    The majority you cite can't say what gun control they want in specific details. Who cares.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Also, I'm not sure that the "no gun control" position is as popular as you think.

    According to Gallup 67% favor "more strict" gun laws. And 63% say that banning semi-autos is at least somewhat effective vs 35% that say it's not very or not at all.

    I'll stand by my original point.

  • Longtobefree||

    It ain't about popular, it is about the constitution.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Read the OP.

  • TuIpa||

    Did.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Same polls that showed Hillary for the win?

  • Tony||

    No polls are ever to be trusted again because they were wrong one time!*

    *They weren't wrong

  • ||

    No polls are ever to be trusted again because they were wrong one time!*

    *They weren't wrong

    You mean Dewey beat Truman?

  • Tony||

    Hillary beat Trump... in public opinion, the thing being polled. By a lot.

    And you guys are just fine with the loser actually being president. Thank god for the electoral college to protect us from our own choices. We wouldn't want an insane dangerous buffoon as president after all.

  • Don't look at me.||

    No, we didn't get that.

  • DJK||

    The popular vote is now a good proxy for public opinion? Voter turnout was all of 55%.

  • DJK||

    The electoral college doesn't protect us from our own choices. It is a mechanism for enforcing a relationship between the states and the federal government.

  • Tony||

    Blah blah blah. He's the president of everyone.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He isn't the loser. Hillary is. The rules are the same as they always were. No surprises. He handily defeated her. Period. You just aren't capable of admitting that. Another reason you should commit suicide.

    You're just a lying piece of shit Tony.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|7.12.18 @ 6:09PM|#
    "Hillary beat Trump... in public opinion, the thing being polled..."

    She also won "Most Miserable Hag" in high school, but we're considering the presidential election here.
    Which she LOST, loser.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Hillary Clinton was beloved! She was a saint! She was supposed to win! She was going to win! Until Russia, and hacking, and pussy grabbing, and Comey, and Pizzagate! It was all fake news and Russian trolls stealing our DEMOCRACY AND GETTING US ALL FUCKED UIP IN THE FACE AND HEAD I CAN'T FUCKING TAKE IT! YOU WRECKED MY COUNTRY I AM SCREAMING AS LOUD AS THE DIARRAAH COMING OUT OF MY ASS AHHHHHHH1 AHHHHHHHHHH! MY HEAD WILL EXPLODE!

  • TuIpa||

    "in public opinion, the thing being polled. "

    Shameless liar is shameless.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Hillary beat Trump... in public opinion, the thing being polled. By a lot.

    Don't you have a rock to crawl back under?

  • MarkLastname||

    Polls predicted Hillary would win the electoral college. They were wrong. Stop being stupid.

  • JesseAz||

    Tony is too dumb to know that major pollsters manipulate their raw data based on their assumptions of actual voter demographics.

  • Finrod||

    Yep. Gallup predicted a 50-49 Romney win in 2012.

  • Brendan||

    I still want to know where all the guns went between 1993 and 2000. With that many guns flooding the secondary market, new gun sales should have plummeted and used gun sales been exceptionally cheap.

  • LarryA||

    According to Gallup 67% favor "more strict" gun laws.

    If Gallup's numbers were anywhere near valid, and there was super-majority popular support for the laws, the legislation would shoot through Congress like a rifle bullet through an apple. Representatives know how to count votes.

    See above.

  • TuIpa||

    Did.

  • MarkLastname||

    I suspect about 67% of Americans don't know what a semi-automatic gun is.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Sure they do. Its like on TV where endless streams of bullets come out while the bad guys wave the muzzle back and forth.

    Besides, at least 70% of Americans believe in angels.

  • ||

    It's refreshing to see this, especially in a high-school aged kid.

    Especially having lived through the attack. It Hogg and Gonzalez are asking the government to protect them (and other people with them as proxy). Kashuv is saying, "It's OK, we got this. You worry about defending you."

  • TangoDelta||

    Except Hogg and Gonzalez aren't asking for government protection they're asking government to strip other people of their rights. Besides asking the government for protection is like a guy with a sledge hammer to fill a dixie cup from a fire hydrant.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're not speaking "truth to power" if power agrees with what you're saying.

    This dude is far more brave than Hogg the test tube soy creature, Sinead O'Lopez, or any of the other fame whores that have been soaking up back-pats from the mass media complex for their tears over kids they never associated with before they were shot.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I get a lot of death threats, I don't even think I notice them anymore...

    They're all gun-free, so I wouldn't notice them, either.

  • Libertymike||

    FoE, if you lived in the greater Foxboro area, you would get some death threats - if you remained true to your beloved black and gold.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    LET'S GO PENS

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Boom.

  • ||

    In June, Hogg was the victim of a swatting attempt when someone sent police to his house in Florida in hopes law enforcement would mistake Hogg or his family as violent and use force against them.

    Sure. Two unknown gamers get an innocent man murdered in a third state on the 28th of Dec. and by the 8th of Jan. they're filing felony charges against one of them by name... But when a SWATting takes place without incident when no one's home, despite the fact that dad's a former FBI agent and son gains notoriety as an anti-gun firebrand sub-par to the likes of Ann Coulter or Alex Jones, SWATters become unfindable people in the country where the NSA listens to literally everyone.

    And Seth Rich was robbed too.

  • Just Say'n||

    "has been mentored by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro"

    Robby's "god emperor".

    He titles articles "facts don't care about your feelings" and now he's writing about Shapiro's lackey. See what you've done to Robby? He's going too far to the other side now!

  • BYODB||

    Can we please stop dealing with school shooting kids one way or the other? The opinions of children are rarely valuable, and just because they lived through a tragedy it doesn't give them any special viewpoint on the 2nd amendment any more so than living through a hurricane makes you an expert on meteorology.

  • ||

    any more so than living through a hurricane makes you an expert on meteorology.

    Out of curiosity, do you complain about all the interviews with hurricane survivors as well?

  • Longtobefree||

    Yes.
    Any reporter that stick a micrphone in my face and asks me what it's like to lose my home is going to need a proctologist.

  • BYODB||

    No, but the analogy is obviously not perfect.

  • Aloysious||

    You can't spell analogy without 'anal'. Wait, this isn't a thread about prostitution?

  • Aloysious||

    You can't spell analogy without 'anal'. Wait, this isn't a thread about prostitution?

  • Aloysious||

    You can't spell analogy without 'anal'. Wait, this isn't a thread about prostitution?

  • Aloysious||

    Squirrel's, you're dead.

  • Aloysious||

    You can't spell analogy without 'anal'. Wait, this isn't a thread about prostitution?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    The ones commenting about how it's all the fault of global warming? sure.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, another view might go like this:

    And these children that you spit on,
    As they try to change their worlds,
    Are immune to your consultations,
    They're quite aware of what they're going through...

  • SQRLSY One||

    David Bowie! Cool cultured quote!

    (I will become cultured if you place me in a petri dish on some agar substrate, I promise!)

  • BYODB||

    From the mouths of babes comes...something good? Maybe, but given how well civics is taught at most schools I sincerely doubt most kids have any inkling about natural rights let alone constitutional government so, again, I don't think they have much valuable to say other than how they feel, or what the situation was like.

    It doesn't mean they don't have idea's about those things, merely that their idea's aren't terribly valuable outside of anecdotal experience and opinion: something we already have more than enough of without turning these kids into media personalities immediately after seeing friends gunned down.

    Using them as point and counterpoint to play off one another as mouth pieces for larger concerns is...immoral in my view. I felt the same way about Hogg, and since they're getting death threats for their opinions as children one might wonder at the wisdom of the media's insistence on putting them forward as emotional argument proxies.

  • Libertymike||

    Good points BYODB.

    I cited Bowie's words just to counterpoint. Plus, those 4 lines have always stood out to me and Changes happens to be my favorite Bowie song.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Can we please stop dealing with school shooting kids one way or the other?

    But the children are our future. It is known.

  • Longtobefree||

    And that is a crying shame.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Can we please stop dealing with school shooting kids one way or the other? The opinions of children are rarely valuable, and just because they lived through a tragedy it doesn't give them any special viewpoint on the 2nd amendment any more so than living through a hurricane makes you an expert on meteorology."

    Actually I must say, I do largely agree...

    I am a victim of God, in the God sure as Hell doesn't seem to give one even-slightly-flaming shit about what I am doing, to clue me in on what I am doing wrong, and keep my ass from being the grass for all of the approaching lawnmowers!!! Lawnmowers largely = Government Almighty and It's Evil Minions, I might add...

    As a victim of God, what special privileges might I expect, and when and where are they (media etc.) going to interview me?!?!?

    Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The opinions of children are rarely valuable


    What is your assessment of the value of opinions of poorly educated, intolerant, economically inadequate people who never moved out of deplorable backwaters and who believe childish fairy tales are true?

    Thank you.
  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Personally, I rate them slightly higher than people who make HTML errors.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Arty, you're undoubtedly referring to progressive idiots from the entertainment industry.

  • VinniUSMC||

    What is your assessment of the value of opinions of poorly educated, intolerant, economically inadequate people who never moved out of deplorable backwaters and who believe childish fairy tales are true?

    Our assessment of you, Artie, is to fuck off with your projecting bullshit.

  • Azathoth!!||


    What is your assessment of the value of opinions of poorly educated, intolerant, economically inadequate people who never moved out of deplorable backwaters and who believe childish fairy tales are true?

    Well, Artie, we're not very fond of you. But it may not be because you're a poorly educated, intolerant, economically inadequate person who never moved out of deplorable backwaters and who believes childish fairy tales are true.

    Nah, it's probably the fact that you're an asshole on top of all that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I accept the lack of kind feeling from no-count, right-wing faux libertarians.

    I am content.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "I get a lot of death threats, I don't even think I notice them anymore."

    He needs to ask the death-threateners what method of killing they propose to use, and then tell them that they need to work to OUTLAW that method which they propose!

    "I want to outlaw myself and my methods".

    "Please go right ahead and do that now!"

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    SQRSLY, you are by far my favorite H&R poster. Never stop being you.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Thank You Leo Kovalensky II!!! Dude Sir!!!

  • HGW xx/7||

    If it was from an ANTIFA type, it's still be by a gun, but that's totally "different". Death threat from a "peace-loving" leftie? They'd sentence him to work as a dreadlocked waiter at a vegan restaurant in Seattle for the rest of his life.

  • Conchfritters||

    Objection - appropriation

  • Conchfritters||

    Easy solution - get rid of your face/twit/insta/snap, close your email, get a land line and a mailbox. I doubt a millennial Antifa warrior would have the first clue how to mail a death threat to that kid.

  • Tony||

    Coming out as a vocal supporter for NAMBLA after someone molested the kindergarten would be unseemly to most people too.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Between cousin-fucking and bringing up pedophilia as an analogy for gun control, you're sure revealing quite a bit about yourself here.

  • Tony||

    I just binge-watched Veep. I will be extra vulgar for a while, princess.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I just binge-watched Veep. I will be extra vulgar for a while, princess.

    Was moving to the big city and getting AIDS worth it?

  • Tony||

    My personal vietnam.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Say what you will about Tony, but he has a sense of humor, sort of.

  • JesseAz||

    You obviously make bad decisions.

  • JesseAz||

    You obviously make bad decisions.

  • HGW xx/7||

    And since molestation is clearly spelled out as a right in the constitution, this isn't a shitty, half-assed false analogy, at all, amiright?

  • Tony||

    You can't shoot up a school with nunchucks.

  • HGW xx/7||

    You're okay with that level of cultural appropriation, brah? I can't even...

  • HGW xx/7||

    Btw, you also can't commit hate speech if your tongue is cut out. Glad to hear you're with the gestapo on this, fascist!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nunchucks are illegal in New York. That thin legal line is the only thing protecting you from marauding ninjas. Thank a forward-thinking legislator.

  • SusanM||

    When nunchucks are outlawed, only outlaw ninjas will have them.

    Oh, shit...

  • ||

    half-assed false analogy

    Considering no kindergarteners were shot or diddled in the making of Kashuv's story and he's not speaking out in favor of the NRA it's more like 1/5-assed. 1/4 at best.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well then, how many NAMBLA-istas have come out with their magical NAMBLA-powers so as to prevent the molestation of The Children?

    "A Good Guy with Magical NAMBLA powers is what it takes to stop a Bad Guy with Magical NAMBLA powers", is THAT what it cums down to? Any citations for me?

  • Tony||

    Very few pedophiles behave like gun nuts and advertise their sick fetish to the world as if we're supposed to feel anything but revulsion for them.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    In this thread, Tony reveals his NAMBLA membership.

  • HGW xx/7||

    His is proudly laminated!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Wipe clean!

  • MarkLastname||

    This is true; most pediphiles commit acts of violence against children, while most 'gun nuts' harm no one.

    Hmm, let's see, what percent of homos turn out to be pedophiles or rapists? I mean maybe not most, but if we can prevent just one sex crime, we ought to strip gays of their right to pack fudge. For the children.

  • Sevo||

    "So, it's some unknown quirk that mass shootngs in the United States are 11,300% higher than the UK, adjuste for population
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 22.6 per year"

    Hihnsane expects us to believe stats pulled out of his ass.

  • ||

    Well then, how many NAMBLA-istas have come out with their magical NAMBLA-powers so as to prevent the molestation of The Children?

    I'd still support the molester operating with consent and within the law in his actions against the dude wandering around into schools molesting children at random.

    For Chrissakes, a majority of us voted for Bill Clinton.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You DARE compare the gay community to the NRA?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Who is their leader? Recently only lifetime homosexuals get a vote and the whole darned thing is rigged anyway. I suppose a lot of 'em are just in it for the magazine. Politics be damned.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, as a card carrying member of NAMBLA yourself I suppose you have some perspective on that.

  • MarkLastname||

    I see you're still retarded.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    You know, Tony, I think you and Hihn are about the most disgusting twats to infest the comments section. There is literally nothing redeeming about your posts. As the meme goes, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit out a smarter argument.

  • JesseAz||

    Artie is sad now.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another fledgling right-winger. I hope he enjoys being part of the inconsequential minority throughout his backward, shambling lifetime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib's trying to compensate for his own self-loathing again.

  • HGW xx/7||

    At least Tony puts some passion and humor into his posts. The Rev is just a nagging school marm. Sad.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't like bigots. I don't like faux libertarians, especially when they are disaffected right-wing yahoos. I don't like half-educated, superstitious goobers with delusions of adequacy.

    Fortunately, my preferences prevail in America.

  • HGW xx/7||

    A solid 'D'. Confident-sounding, but lacking integrity. Keep trying, lil buddy.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|7.12.18 @ 8:21PM|#
    "I don't like bigots"

    Annoying asshole must have a hard time with that mirror.

  • TuIpa||

    "We are the 60%, Rev."

    ITT Hihn admits he's a leftist.

    Or rather, admits what we already know.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's dementia prevents him from seeing his own-goal.

  • TuIpa||

    "I don't like faux libertarians"

    I don't like johnny-come-lately nobodies who know exactly fuckall about libertarians deciding who is "faux"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks boldface enhances ridicule instead of his own idiocy.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    "I don't like bigots."

    Don't you really mean you don't like the bigots who disagree with you? My guess is you get along fine with people who are bigoted against the same things you are.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    "I don't like bigots."

    Don't you really mean you don't like the bigots who disagree with you? My guess is you get along fine with people who are bigoted against the same things you are.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hot!

  • NashTiger||

    It's like he hasn't heard news of an election return since Nov. 2008

    The Inconsequential Minority is close to achieving a near-hegemonic state unrivaled since Reconstruction

  • TuIpa||

    I did. You're still wrong.

  • DJK||

    Good Reverend: I never saw your retort on the 3D printed gun article. How are you feeling about that loss and the Kavanaugh nomination? Still believe that strict gun control is just around the corner?

  • TuIpa||

    "Do you also believe all blacks can tap dance?"

    So Hihn is also a racist.

    "Are you really so uninformed that you don't know 3D printing is only manufacturing"

    And an idiot who knows nothing about 3d printing.

  • vek||

    Everybody knows not all black people can tap dance... That's old school black shit, brothas nowadays ain't got nothin' to do with that faggoty ass shit yo!

    But it is KNOWN that all black people can play bass.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I believe the backlash against gun nuts will be surprisingly swift and increasingly likely to be severe.

    Gun nuts, like the anti-abortion kooks, have tied their political wagons to a declining Republican-conservative electoral coalition. Demographic trends coupled with self-inflicted wounds (bigotry, backwardness, Trump) make that coalition's prospects relatively dim.

    I perceive a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. I hope that right withstands the anti-yahoo backlash, but am increasingly skeptical that it can. The nuts seem unprepared to compromise, which suggests they will press stubbornly until the dam breaks against them.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Kashuv? Sounds Russian to me. I guess we know where he gets his marching orders from.

  • Conchfritters||

    Turning Point's High School Leadership Summit, which features a range of high-profile conservative speakers including.... Attorney General Jeff Sessions

    I can't think of a worse person to put in front of those kids. If your trying to recruit young people, you aren't doing yourselves any favors rolling that fucker out in front of them.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    His middle name also begins with K??!!!!* OMG!!111!!!1!1!1!11eleventyone11111

    His initials are KKK???!11!? He's a fuckin clanman white racialist. This is proof!1!!!

    *I have no idea what his middle name is, if he even has one, but think of the viral potential for that

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's 'Edward'

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Diabolical!

  • Procyon Rotor||

    KEK? Meme magic is still going strong... Shadilay, my brothers!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Ok I had to search that and went down some kind of meme rabbit hole, reemerging at "UR MOM GAY". That's just about right for stupid o'clock on an internet.

  • shane_c||

    He's not for free speech, he would censor anything he considers indecent or obscene.

  • MarkLastname||

    Is making shit up about people a hobby of yours?

  • ||

    Hang in there kid. In the long run, you'll do fine. Principles are something worth holding.

  • DajjaI||

    1A and 2A - can't really go wrong with that. Just have to make sure Kavanaugh is confirmed. Then we don't have to worry about the war on autistic kids the progs have been salivating over.

  • Sevo||

    Our Hihnsane dimbulb posted this:
    "Perhaps someday he'll understand the entire context of unalienable rights, and see how wrong his is by focusing on just one, when no rights are absolute."
    It is likely Hihnsane dimbulb will croak before he understands that contradiction in that statement.

  • JesseAz||

    Umm... You constantly cite parts of Heller out of context...

  • IceTrey||

    The thing is there is only one human right, to not have force initiated against you. It IS absolute and seeing how it is the only one it can not conflict with any others.

  • Tony||

    I've always called you guys rights-minimalists. You've hacked them all to death but one!

    I don't actually think this is because you're a peddler of evil, but because your brain reacts well to arguments that go "simpler is better."

  • IceTrey||

    Because there is only one all the others are its consequences or corollaries.

  • IceTrey||

    You don't really make any argument.

  • TuIpa||

    No, it's more that you lie at every opportunity about every
    concievable subject and hate having your opportunities diminished.

  • IceTrey||

    Really? Argumentum ad hominem? That's pathetic bro.

  • IceTrey||

    Oh was that to Tony?

  • The Narrator||

    Here you see Tony unintentionally admit simple concepts are too difficult for him to grasp.

  • Tony||

    Merely that complex concepts are too difficult for you.

  • MarkLastname||

    Roman Catholicism is pretty complex compared to atheism, I suppose you dispense with Occam's razor there too?

  • MarkLastname||

    Simplicity follows from principles, Tony. Self ownership is the principle here.

    People like you know doubt have a very set of rules due to all the exceptions. You have the right to free speech, unless it's near an election time and you're talking about a candidate; unless you work for a corporate media outlet, then you can say what you want because journalists are especial; unless you work for Fox, then your license should be revoked.

    Racism is bad; unless you're racist against white people; or against blacks people with wrong opinions; or against Asians sometimes; and sometimes Jews. Oh, and by white, we don't mean white hispanics or Arabs. Unless they're doing something bad, then they count as white.

    Yes, you have a very gratuitously complicated, inconsistent, and convoluted system. Congratulations I guess.

  • IceTrey||

    Defend them from what?

  • ace_m82||

    Evasion.

  • ace_m82||

    No, it wasn't an answer, it was a claim of "wackiness". It's an appeal to ridicule, and an evasion.

  • ace_m82||

    You know, Hihn, there's this thing called "Google". And literally the first result of searching for appeal to ridicule is:

    www.softschools.com/examples/f.....mples/519/

    Also, here's the Wikipedia entry:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

    Does it bother you to lie like that?

  • ace_m82||

    "A crazy-fuck theory"

    Appeal to ridicule.

    "advanced by a tiny 2% of Americans"

    Majority makes right.

    "has no standing in law"

    Appeal to authority.

    "violates over two centirues fof Natural Law"

    Appeal to tradition.

    "and libertarian principles"

    Fallacy of definitions Incongruity: overly narrow (to mean Hihn, and only Hihn).

    "That's how BIGOTS defend laws"

    Association fallacy/appeal to emotion.

    Hihn, you should go to college level critical thinking classes, make a statement like the one above, and give extra credit to the students who can name all of the errors in it.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    ^ Bravo! ^

  • ace_m82||

    So you admit all the other fallacies? That's uncharacteristically big of you.

    Now, if you didn't mean that one as an appeal to authority, then I'd answer "I don't care, the law is evil". And you'd say... what, again?

    You do know that laws can be evil, right?

  • ace_m82||

    "The stupidity is so massive that obviously applies to all of them"

    Appeal to ridicule.

    "without being like your non-stop ad-hominems"

    In psychology, we call that "projection".

    "(Mike adds abnother fuckup to the list)"

    Hihn believes laws cannot be evil. Stalin and Mao smile.

  • ace_m82||

    And, since you copy/pasted this, I'll copy/paste my answer:

    "You've been stalking me and assaulting me for over a year"

    No, I point out error here. You are more guilty than most.

    "promoting a society you REFUSE to live in"

    Government =/= society.

    "Adults know the world doesn't work that way."

    I guess only the "adults" murder and steal.

    "I say you should emigrate"

    Why do you insist you can steal?

    A wise man once said:

    Thou Shalt not covet.
    Thou Shalt not steal.
    Thou Shalt not murder.

    If the government were elected on the "screw you, you die" platform, would it violate your rights to murder you? Why or why not?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "MORE cowardly evasion"

    Answering you directly is now an "evasion"? Must be Common Core English.

    "you REJECT changing this society"

    Don't steal, don't murder.

    "REFUSE to create another one"

    I don't need to. The Kingdom of Heaven was created by a better being. There's no theft or murder there. In the meantime, quit trying to say it's "necessary" here.

    "What in HELL is left?"

    For you? More theft and murder.

    "Become an adult"

    Not if that means stealing and murdering.

  • ace_m82||

    "You expect ANYONE to believe you live in heaven?"

    I will. How about you, Hihn?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "I said you are demanding a society that was impossible to live in And you just confirmed it."

    Not impossible, it just requires people to stop using men-with-guns to steal and murder. Think Medieval Iceland.

    "I said NOBODY on earth agrees with even your version of an-cap."

    Wrong. www.mises.org/library/economic.....-society-0

    Also, appeal to majority.

    "To name anyone else, you say, would be an 'Appeal to Authority'"

    It doesn't matter who said it, it matters if what is said is logically defensible. You've proven you can't do that.

    "So you alone want a veto power over 350 million Americans"

    Everyone has veto power over millions of people who want to initiate force.

    "you somehow feel entitled tp suck off a society's wealth and opportunity"

    Initiating force =/= society

    "created and maintained by people YOU say have no right to do so"

    In so much as a cartel "creates" and "maintains" its control over people, that's true.

    "This is the last you'll ever hear from me."

    Liar.

    "I've suffered over a year tof your assaults"

    Defending truth is no assault.

    "98% of humanity rejects ANY anarchism"

    Appeal to majority.

  • vek||

    Rights are as absolute as people are willing to make them, usually by using violence against those that would violate said rights. That's what all of history teaches us. Assholes will always try to violate virtually any "right" that exists, but if enough people are willing to kill said assholes then they can be free. Sometimes you can merely shun said assholes, or convince enough of an overwhelming majority of the population that said assholes are just ignored... But often it takes killing them. This is reality, like it or not.

    Pacifists are idiots. And people who take the NAP to silly extremes in certain contexts are too. NAP is a good rule of thumb to start from, but there are many real world examples where one is a fool to adhere to it strictly.

  • IceTrey||

    The NAP is about initiating force not retaliating with force in defense.

  • vek||

    Way too late to expect a response, but still had the page up...

    Here's the thing: People argue about what "initiating force is" and what "retaliating" is.

    For instance somebody pulling a gun on you and threatening to blow your brains out is pretty clear. 99.999% of libertarians would say it was fine to shoot somebody in such a situation. Or even if somebody pulled a knife on you, and you had a gun... But some might start saying here you should merely subdue them, and then do something less than kill them for punishment. Equal, but not more amounts of force to be used in response to aggression and all that.

    But is the government taking 40-50% of your wealth aggression worth physically retaliating against? How about CPS taking your children for BS reasons? Etc. The founding fathers sure as hell would have started killing people if they magically popped into modern day America and all the injustices we suffer at the hands of our government!

    So that's the thing. Force isn't ALWAYS direct physical violence against you... But such soft/implied force from government, always with the slightly veiled threat of violence behind it, AT SOME POINT does become justified in using violence against it. But it's all a very fuzzy wuzzy/grey zone. It's in the grey areas where people will debate it, and sometimes I think a lot of libertarians come down on the violence isn't okay side, when I think it would be acceptable if people were willing.

  • vek||

    I can scarcely think of a country in the world where I DON'T think the populace would be justified in revolting and installing a better government, if they felt so inclined. If they're happy with being slaves that's their call too, but I would have zero problem with the UK overthrowing their 1984 style government and booting the royal family out of Buckingham Palace.

  • ace_m82||

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853
    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!
    So, tell us again, Hihn, how those Jews in Auschwitz were "free to leave"? Those walls with the barbed wire and the guards with the machine guns, those were to prevent others from attacking those Jews, huh?
    Hihn legitimately thinks "rights" are subject to the will of the majority (or plurality). And, if this is anything like many of the other times I've brought it up, Hihn will now come forward to defend the Nazis and their "rights" and "freedom"...
    Continued...

  • ace_m82||

    There were other "concentration" camps. Red Herring.

    You defend Nazis, because they were elected. Admit it, if you're right about governmental legitimacy and how rights work, then the Nazis were legitimate and violated no rights.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "The "other" camps were for different purposes"

    No, they were many for their final solution.

    "you've already admitted Jews were free to leave leave ss than a year earlier."

    Shockingly enough, that's why I phrased the question in that manner. The 1940s, Hihn.

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • Sevo||

    Hihn,
    Is there a point buried in that shit-pile, or is it just one more incoherent rant?
    It certainly looks like you are arguing with yourself, which would not be a first.

  • ace_m82||

    "He ADMITS that's bullshit ... in his next sentence!"

    No, I didn't.

    "FOURTH TIME ... AUSCHWITZ WAS OPEN IN 1940 -- WHICH IS THE 1940s"

    A. There were other camps.
    B. The question was about Jews in the 1940s. So no, they couldn't leave in the 1940s.

    "YOU ADMIT THERE WERE NO KILLINGS IN THE 1930S."

    I've said no such thing.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

    "In October 1939 Hitler signed a 'euthanasia decree'... Between 1939 and 1941, 80,000 to 100,000 mentally ill adults in institutions were killed, as were 5,000 children and 1,000 Jews"
    "In December 1939 and January 1940, another method besides shooting was tried. Experimental gas vans equipped with gas cylinders and a sealed compartment were used to kill the disabled and mentally-ill in occupied Poland."
    "The mass killings of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories were assigned to four SS formations called Einsatzgruppen ("task groups"), which were under Heydrich's overall command. Similar formations had been used to a limited extent in Poland in 1939"

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • ace_m82||

    I'll just post it again because you obviously need to read it several times to understand it:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

    "In October 1939 Hitler signed a 'euthanasia decree'... Between 1939 and 1941, 80,000 to 100,000 mentally ill adults in institutions were killed, as were 5,000 children and 1,000 Jews"
    "In December 1939 and January 1940, another method besides shooting was tried. Experimental gas vans equipped with gas cylinders and a sealed compartment were used to kill the disabled and mentally-ill in occupied Poland."
    "The mass killings of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories were assigned to four SS formations called Einsatzgruppen ("task groups"), which were under Heydrich's overall command. Similar formations had been used to a limited extent in Poland in 1939"

    Why do you continue when 3rd parties prove you wrong?

  • ace_m82||

    And, since you copy/pasted this, I'll copy/paste my answer:

    "You've been stalking me and assaulting me for over a year"

    No, I point out error here. You are more guilty than most.

    "promoting a society you REFUSE to live in"

    Government =/= society.

    "Adults know the world doesn't work that way."

    I guess only the "adults" murder and steal.

    A wise man once said:

    Thou Shalt not covet.
    Thou Shalt not steal.
    Thou Shalt not murder.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "MORE cowardly evasion"

    Answering you directly is now an "evasion"? Must be Common Core English.

    "ANARCHY = SOCIETY"

    It can.

    "you REJECT changing this society"

    Don't steal, don't murder.

    "REFUSE to create another one"

    I don't need to. The Kingdom of Heaven was created by a better being. There's no theft or murder there.

    "What in HELL is left?"

    For you? More theft and murder.

  • ace_m82||

    Proof by False Declaration of Victory, or
    Argument by assertion, or
    Danth's Law

    (pick one)

  • vek||

    LOLz

    The fact is Hitler would have gladly let every single Jew in his territory leave, up until the war really got going. They were still trying to get Jews out of their territory even after the beginning of the shooting war, since they weren't at war with the whole planet right at the get go. Most places just wouldn't take enough of them to make a real difference.

    But yeah, by a certain point in the war Jews couldn't really leave, because they'd be thrown in ghettos or camps.

    You guys are arguing over stupid minutia. Hitler didn't like Jews. He tried to get them out of his lands, nobody would take them. Once he knew he could get rid of him he slaved the shit out of them because they needed labor, and then more or less after they knew the war was lost Himmler and other top SS guys decided they should just whack them all. The end. I'm a huge WWII buff and that is a gross over simplification, but it's close enough to what went down to work. Quit being all nit picky about minutia.

  • ace_m82||

    The reason it was brought up is because he thinks that "rights" are dependent upon "consent of the governed", which he believes is determined by elections. If that's so, then the Nazis must not have violated the rights of the Jews, because they were elected.

    Obviously, this is wrong, but he'll defend Nazis and lie about what happened to avoid having to change his mind.

    In the meantime, it makes him say stupid things, so there's that.

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn also knows that defensive firearm uses are over 2 million per year according to the CDC's own studies:
    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o
    So, the only answer is that Hihn doesn't care about violent crime, only about governmental power. Now why would that be?
    The only rational answer I can give you is this:
    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud
    There were 262 million murders of UNARMED people by governments in the 20th century.
    You see, he has to disarm us in order to kill us. He worships the State, and the elections by a small minority (the plurality that votes for the winner, out of the minority that vote). And nothing, NOTHING is allowed to stand in its way. Not you, not me, and certainly not the peasants who think they can own guns to defend themselves!
    He worships the State. If you don't worship the State, he wants to be able to kill you. There is nothing else that makes sense*.
    *OK, asking Hihn to make sense is quite ridiculous, I know. But, if he is anything other than insane, this must be his plan. So, he's either insane, or attempting mass murder. You choose.
    Facts:
    Hihn defends Nazis because they didn't violate "rights" (as he sees them).
    Hihn wants to take your guns away even though that will cause more violent crime.
    Hihn knows government often mass murders UNARMED civilians but still wants to disarm you.

  • ace_m82||

    "Bad guys ONLY have guns because YOU do,"

    As far as I know, I've never sold a gun to a bad guy, and I've only sold one in my life, and it was through an FFL, so if it was a bad guy, then your beloved government failed you. Also, never had one stolen either.

    "The PROOF is
    - All the places like London, where COPS have no guns
    - Our mass shootings are 11,300% higher than the the UK, per year, adjusted to population.
    - PUT UP OR SHUT UP"

    The PROOF is simple.

    -Mass shootings are no worse than mass stabbings, or a bunch of individual murders. People are still dead.
    -The UK's crime rate is impossible to accurately compare to the US's. www.americas1stfreedom.org/art.....der-stats/
    -Defensive firearm uses are over 2 million per year according to the CDC's own studies:
    www.http://reason.com/blog/201.....t-plenty-o

  • ace_m82||

    Broken link fix:
    www.reason.com/blog/2018/04/20.....t-plenty-o
    More UK vs US crime measurement issues:
    http://www.rboatright.blogspot.....rates.html

  • Sevo||

    Of course, to an ignoramus of Hihnsane's caliber, any correlation automatically means causation.
    IGNORAMUS IGNORANT AGAIN (dumbshit)

  • ace_m82||

    Correct. We should disarm the biggest murderers, then, right?

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud

    There were 262 million murders of UNARMED people by governments in the 20th century. Private sector can't compete with that!

  • ace_m82||

    "We are MUCH worse than the UK, 11,300%"

    But a mass murder is no worse than a whole bunch of individual murders.

    "MASS SHOOTINGS."

    INDIVIDUAL STABBINGS.

    "Mass Shootings Per year"

    Doesn't matter. A murder is a murder. It doesn't matter how it happens.

    You're cherry picking data. Congrats on the new fallacy.

    "Are those YOUR values on 'sanctity of human life?'"

    I mean, you defend Nazis and other governmental murder.

    "STILL a traitor to Jesus Christ?"

    Nope. Never have been.

    The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. - John 14:21

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "BAD GUYS HAVE GUNS BECAUSE YOU ... HAVE A GUN"

    What would be the causal mechanism for that? Or are you calling me bad because I won't murder, rape, assault, or steal?

  • ace_m82||

    "You've been stalking me and assaulting me for over a year"

    No, I point out error here. You are more guilty than most.

    "promoting a society you REFUSE to live in"

    Government =/= society.

    "Adults know the world doesn't work that way."

    I guess only the "adults" murder and steal.

    A wise man once said:

    Thou Shalt not covet.
    Thou Shalt not steal.
    Thou Shalt not murder.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    "What would Jesus say?"

    He said: "He who has my commands (thou shalt not covet, steal, murder) and obeys them, he is the one who loves me."

  • ace_m82||

    "CONFESSES aggression"

    Lie.

    "You change the subject"

    Your error is the subject.

    "In reality, ADULTS choose from CURRENTLY AVAILABLE choices"

    Then "adults" are thieves and murderers.

    "Where did Christ sanction aggression?"

    There was that thing about driving the money changers out of the temple and calling the religious leaders a "brood of vipers".

    "You FAIL to provide an alternative"

    Don't steal, don't murder.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Lemme guess: the "conservative" boy now supports overturning that nasty Roe v. Wade decision, and instead sending men with guns to threaten doctors and pregnant women?

  • JesseAz||

    A guarantee only found in the writings of Jefferson but not the constitution. The latter only forbids the establishment of a religion, not a complete separation of all religion.

  • vek||

    I doubt it. Most young conservative leaning people just don't give much of a shit about abortion. I've been conservative/libertarian since I was a teenager, and I never gave a fuck about people killing their babies. For me it has nothing to do with principle... It's simply pragmatism. People who know they're in a shitty life position shouldn't be having kids, and even people in decent life positions who don't want to have kids should probably ALSO not have kids... Those are the most common reasons people have abortions... So murder away.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you have information about a murder, goober, the sole reasonable and decent course would be to alert the relevant authorities.

    If you have no information about a murder, the sole decent course would be to stop spouting superstitious nonsense while your betters are engaging in reasoned debate.

  • vek||

    Is your IQ too low to see when somebody is intentionally using an offense word/term to shit stir?

    I made it clear I don't give a shit either way about abortion. Some people see human life starting before a baby falls out of a broads vagina. I think it's reasonable to say it happens at SOME point before that... When exactly is debatable. Hence some consider it murder at various times in the pregnancy that abortions can happen in different countries around the world.

    Even if it is murder at saaay 2 months or whatever, as a pragmatist, it's probably still an effective way of avoiding children being born into shitty situations. So whatevs.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I think Hihn assumes everyone else here is part of his imagined "ant-government[sic?]" faction of libertariums (HAIL ANTS) and not his elite strike force of special chosen ones he calls "pro-liberty", because the rest of us here are inferior somehow and must be SILENCED with as much frantically typed wall-of-text spamming as his fingers can manage. I think if he knew how to engage in productive, considered discourse he might even find a few sympathetic to his ideas, but he just swarms in and carpet bombs the comments with as much obtuse, provocational, irrational junk as possible. I also can't really see the point of consistently punctuating his posts with "*smirk*" and "*snort*" beyond trying to provoke people with his bizarre provo-prop persona. Judging by the linked site from clicking his name, he seems to believe his philosophy is an overwhelmingly positive ine in contrast with prevailing "negative" libertarian ideas.

    I have concluded that he is either a very sad, quite challenged, and possibly quite bitter individual with some social and communication problems, or he is a persona; a calculated attempt to disrupt any reasoned and productive discourse by focussing on the most base and negative aspects of any perceived opponent, and emphasising nothing but empty ad hom (ironically when I attempted to discuss his methodology before, he called it a "personal attack!", which is somewhat ironic, but entirely within his strategem). A filter for his comments would be useful.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...or he is a persona; a calculated attempt to disrupt any reasoned and productive discourse"

    Would that make him a bot? Either way he definitely needs a psychiatrist.

  • Sevo||

    "He or she is now punishing me .. for TOTALLY humiliating his bat-shit crazy and unporvoked asaault elsewhere on the page"

    Hihnsane piece of shit posts another link that goes right back to the top of the page!
    (Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, Hahaha)
    Fuck off, Mike.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    Joining TPUSA is basically like flying to Guyana in the 70s.

  • Tionico||

    Someone please tell him to dump Jordan Peterson? He's not got it right at all.......

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online