Spurs' Gregg Popovich responds to March For Our Lives, criticizes President Trump

[Nathan89]

March for our lives should be a march against bullying not against your right own guns. Damn shame that root issue isn't being focused on.

"The Department of Health and Human Services’s Stopbullying.govwebsite reports that the perpetrators of 12 of 15 school shootings in the 1990s had a history of being bullied."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/bullying-victims-carry-weapons-guns/

smdh focusing on the wrong issues.

[Pavlov]

You are correct it's a fake quote.

I never saw that quote before that dude posted it. I didn't need that quote prior to seeing it to come to my conclusion therefore it being fake changes nothing. I didn't need to lie. It was simply a mistake. "My side" As opposed to your side that includes suicide statistics to magnify and mislead? Meanwhile, I simple saw a quote that's insignificant to my position and liked it. Which you then proceeded to make a bigger deal than necessary to muddy the waters.

It was a lie you had no problem complimenting.

[Nathan89]

It was a lie you had no problem complimenting.

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.

[Uriel]

I love Pop and I agree with almost everything he says politically. But we're having a terrible season so I wish he would just focus on basketball.

[tholdren]

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.

Meltdown hours later. Youve got problems. I hope someone takes your guns

[K...]

. Even if they changed the age limit, it’s all a Band-Aid,” he said. “The obvious elephant in the room is the guns, weapons of war, the magazines. The real discussion should be about the Second Amendment. Is it useful? Does it serve its purpose the way it was supposed to do in the beginning? That discussion should be had.”

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good

[Spurs 4 The Win]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good

Pop is borderline senile and in a constant state of intoxication. Please make the midterms about repealing the 2A and see what happens. Republicans will bury the Dems.

[cd98]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good

It's funny because Pop is the real coward. Why isn't he calling out Obama for doing no gun reform when he had a super majority? Instead, he only raises his voice when its Trump because he knows the media will worship him for it. I'll give Pop some cred as a woke warrior when I hear him say Obama was a coward for not passing gun control laws when he had the opportunity. But we all know Pop doesn't have the courage to say anything that won't be instantly worshiped by the sycophant media that he pretends not to adore.

[Pavlov]

It was insignificant to my position. I had no reason to lie. You're just trying to muddy the waters.

"OMG, that's a lie. Your side always lies. You position basically built on lies."

Control yourself. It was insignificant. Next time just pointing out that something isn't accurate will be fine. Anything beyond that is childish.

Your whining is insignificant. Your lying is significant.

[tholdren]

Your whining is insignificant. Your lying is significant.

Hes unable to converse without a meltdown

[Killakobe81]

It's funny because Pop is the real coward. Why isn't he calling out Obama for doing no gun reform when he had a super majority? Instead, he only raises his voice when its Trump because he knows the media will worship him for it. I'll give Pop some cred as a woke warrior when I hear him say Obama was a coward for not passing gun control laws when he had the opportunity. But we all know Pop doesn't have the courage to say anything that won't be instantly worshiped by the sycophant media that he pretends not to adore.

Even with a majority Obama's ass couldnt get any strict gun reform through. That majority will always put re-election above reform ..and we Americans love our guns.

[Bill_Brasky]

ITT: gun owners changing the argument and not addressing very simple, good points that favor better regulations for guns

[bic50]

http://fxn.ws/2pLcKy9

Pop going in on deletion the 2a, good

What weapons of war? Pop is full of . The real elephant in the room is what's making these people want kill a mass of other people. Why doesn't pop want to discuss that?

[bic50]

ITT: gun owners changing the argument and not addressing very simple, good points that favor better regulations for guns

Because we all know what this is all about and what is going to lead to. It's obvious anti gun people want to just ban guns.

[Nathan89]

Pop is one of those people trying to ban all guns that you idiots say don't exist.

[Nathan89]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.

[Phenomanul]

Simple points?

Like the fact that we already have laws against murder? But that those laws don't stop criminals from perpetrating crimes?

Simple enough like that one?

Or how about...

Crimes exist (home break-ins, assaults, theft, etc...) THEREFORE, our local law enforcement agencies aren't 100% effective at responding to crimes (expeditiously or otherwise). THE FACT THAT CRIMES EXIST at any rate above zero validates the notion that the government can't be depended on A) to protect every one, and B) to prevent all violent crime.

It's a simple truth that gun control proponents turn a blind eye to, because it justifies the need for citizens to protect themselves.

To punish law abiding folk with laws meant to target criminals is asinine. BECAUSE CRIMINALS INHERENTLY BREAK THE LAW. THEY DON'T CARE TO BREAK ONE MORE.

Gun control proponents simply don't have a logical retort for that argument. Their only argument on that front is: "if we restrict certain weapons from everybody, we don't care if it limits the freedoms of law-abiding citizens so long as 'bad' people have restricted access to them". The argument is rubbish because 'restricted access' means nothing to criminals. All that such laws would do is give criminal folk the upper hand against law-abiding folk.

Again, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS telling law-abiding, responsible folk, how best to protect themselves.

Gun control proponents don't have to like it. You all don't have to like it.

[Bill_Brasky]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

[Bill_Brasky]

Simple points?

Like the fact that we already have laws against murder? But that those laws don't stop criminals from perpetrating crimes?

Simple enough like that one?

Or how about...

Crimes exist (home break-ins, assaults, theft, etc...) THEREFORE, our local law enforcement agencies aren't 100% effective at responding to crimes (expeditiously or otherwise). THE FACT THAT CRIMES EXIST at any rate above zero validates the notion that the government can't be depended on A) to protect every one, and B) to prevent all violent crime.

It's a simple truth that gun control proponents turn a blind eye to, because it justifies the need for citizens to protect themselves.

To punish law abiding folk with laws meant to target criminals is asinine. BECAUSE CRIMINALS INHERENTLY BREAK THE LAW. THEY DON'T CARE TO BREAK ONE MORE.

Gun control proponents simply don't have a logical retort for that argument. Their only argument on that front is: "if we restrict certain weapons from everybody, we don't care if it limits the freedoms of law-abiding citizens so long as 'bad' people have restricted access to them". The argument is rubbish because 'restricted access' means nothing to criminals. All that such laws would do is give criminal folk the upper hand against law-abiding folk.

Again, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS telling law-abiding, responsible folk, how best to protect themselves.

Gun control proponents don't have to like it. You all don't have to like it.

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dip .

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.

[bic50]

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dip .

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.

What kind of regulations?

[SupremeGuy]

I wonder if he's going to take a hard stand against alcohol. Thousands die every year because of it.

[Phenomanul]

You're dumb.

Law abiding citizens would still be able to own guns with regulations you dip .

And yeah, since people still get murdered we should make murder not a crime. In fact, let's just not have any laws at all. Because obviously they aren't effective.

Such reductionist stupidity.

The laws against murder carry the heftiest sentence across the land, BUT it still doesn't stop those bent on perpetrating murder.

The existence of those laws is absolutely necessary. You are making a false equivalence in suggesting that because criminals break the law, that then those laws aren't necessary. The opposite is true, but it doesn't suit your narrative. IT'S because criminals break the law AND because the government cannot protect every citizen that THEN the citizen has a right to protect himself/herself.

Only you would read what I said and come away with such idiocy.

As for regulation, IT will only infringe the rights of responsible gun owners. Those that don't care will break the law regardless.

The government should not give criminals an advantage against law-abiding folk. ANY regulation (aside from sensible background checks) would ultimately have that effect.

[Nathan89]

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

Thousands of people die every year from alcohol. It's not stupid. Pushing restrictive policy over 17 lives is stupid.

[gambit1990]

The fact that you cling to this weak non-argument is proof that you have no real point. Just stupid all around really.

[tholdren]

Thousands of people die every year from alcohol. It's not stupid. Pushing restrictive policy over 17 lives is stupid.

I agree. But there should be restrictions on alcohol. Just like people shouldnt own aks or wmds.