People don't dislike David Hogg for his politics, there are plenty of people on both sides of the gun control debate that can discuss things in a civil manner, they dislike him because he is a foul-mouthed entitled little ass who can only talk about people on the other side of an opinion in the most offensive terms possible. He's not interested in a discussion or a debate, he is only interested in getting his own way 100%.
Hopefully time will mellow his personality, but I doubt it.

There is no right to abortion in the Constitution. There is, however, a right to keep and bear arms. So the argument that someone is infringing on a woman's "right" is a fallacy.
The idea that no one should be able to tell her what to do with her body is also a fallacy, as soon as that baby started growing, it stopped being just her body. No one should be able to tell a woman when to have sex, or how to prevent it, however, the moment of choice should be before the sex, not before the birth.

Abortions due to rape are a minuscule number of the millions of babies killed. Getting drunk and in over your head is a matter of responsibility, if you did it, why are you now allowed to murder someone who is the result of your bad decision? If you're still living with your parents and they'll beat you and kick you out, it doesn't matter if he's your first love, if he is he'll wait. Again, medical issues for either mother or child are a minuscule number of the total abortions. If you were tricked into unsafe sex, then again, it's a matter of responsibility, why would you put your future in someone else's hands?
The only plausible excuse would be if having that baby is going to kill the mother.

guest_, if you firmly believed, with every piece of your mind, that something was wrong, and horrible, how could you not insert yourself into the debate? Standing on the sidelines is the same as condoning it. It's not people being busybodies and wanting to control others, it people who are standing up for an innocent's right to live. You can pontificate and write paragraphs all you like, but the reality is that they are just as passionate about their convictions as you are but it's not about the woman, it's about the baby.

I'm not even a little bit religious, but I also believe that a baby is a baby once the heart starts beating and that abortion is wrong and taking a human life. So it's not entirely a religious argument or people forcing their religious beliefs on others.
The opposite is also true, those who are pro-abortion (pro-choice doesn't exist, you either condone other's killing babies, or you don't) are also guilty of forcing their beliefs on those who don't believe the same way.

Nosebleeds happen here in kids pretty often because it's so dry and they're dehydrated because they aren't drinking enough water. My son got them quite a bit when he was younger. Now I have him drink more to keep them from coming on.

Everyone doesn't have to severely research everything they're taught, but, everyone should take the source of the information into account when determining whether or not to research. Accepting information from Pythagoras? Pretty low level of research required, accepting information from a random meme? You should probably double check your sources.
Research isn't required to refute your statement, just a little common sense.

If someone is behind you with a knife to your throat, I'd much rather pull my gun and shoot out his knees or legs right behind me that stand there and wait for him to cut my throat or rape me.
If he's behind you, he can see your front clearly and being able to draw and fire out of his sight is an advantage. If there is a concern that he'll slice in reflex, you can still draw out of sight and wait for an opportunity for him to be distracted or turn you around, at that time, it's point blank center mass.

And that Michael Moore has a habit of tossing out platitudes with 0 research behind them because he's sure that all of his fans will simply take his word for it and repeat ad nauseum.

It's interesting that people get that impression, considering that out of the top 10 largest oil companies in the world, only 1 is US, the largest is the Saudis, and the next 3 are all Chinese.
It's almost like people WANT to have the impression that military actions in the Middle East were all about oil, but if that were true, we'd take out the Saudis first.

It won't ever happen, because it's now trendy to think that all of the world's evils begun with something the US did, even things that have an original source that happened long before the US existed, somehow it's still our fault.

Don't assume that everyone who would like to secure our borders (just like every other developed nation in the world) is afraid of immigrants. They're not. They don't like illegal aliens, and the drain on the country's resources that they create.
As for supposed bigoted actions or words, he never called Mexican illegals rapists and murders, he did say that some of them were, which is true, and said that Mexico wasn't sending their best and brightest, which is also true. The countries included in the immigration ban were listed by the Obama administration long before the Trump administration wanted to enact the ban, yet people didn't call Obama a bigot for banning people from those countries, you can see it as part of the Omnibus bill in 2015, 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Not everything is as basic as oppositions try to make it look.

*grammar

Sure, kids in 1940 didn't have to deal with what the kids today deal with. Or how about those kids in 1966? Kids in every generation have had to deal with things that were difficult. Today's generation has more information and knowledge available at their fingertips than ever before. The country is safer than it's ever been (based on crime statistics, real numbers), and kids have unlimited opportunities to succeed and grow.
Kids today aren't special, they've just been told they are by parents who got trophies for showing up.

And one is from Pompeii, which was covered in ash for almost 2000 years, it protects a lot!

And she wore a wedding dress. 5 million might be too low.

Why are people so resistant to the idea of protecting our children's schools in the same way that movie stars protect awards shows, or that politicians protect themselves?
Treat arming teachers like air marshals, no one knows who is armed and who isn't, and those teachers who choose to train, register, and go through the evaluations and re-certifications, would be able to protect that school. That doesn't mean that visible security wouldn't exist, it's just another layer.
Let's also focus on the massive incompetence shown by the sheriff's office and the FBI, and fix those problems.

Actually, military bases are also "gun free zones". The only people who are allowed to carry on base are MPs. So it's not a shooting where people were allowed to shoot back.