March for our lives too ?

[Aguila Blanca]

And if one wishes to protect the Constitution and Second Amendment he must acknowledge the fact the measures the students advocate for are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and in no manner un-Constitutional.

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. The want to ban all semi-automatic, centerfire rifles. That is NOT consistent with even current Second Amendment jurisprudence (Heller), nor is it constitutional (again, Heller).

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Marches mean nothing. The people who show up and do the party work at the local levels, vote in the primaries and vote in the general election decide what happens. Marches only serve to provide a recruiting ground to increase those numbers.

Write your congressmen. Assist them if you have a good one. Resist them if you have a bad one. Logistics and communications are more important than firearms in war and they are critical in politics as well. If you can't master them in peace, don't expect to do better in war.

The 60s hippies had a very solid point when they say "Think global, act local." Your community starts with you and your local area. Build on that and influence that.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm with the original poster...what are we do?

IMHO what we need is a genuine million man person march on Washington to show that we pro-gun people are real people, and that we care about our rights being trampled by the PR machine that the anti-gun forces have set in motion. But, as has been noted -- we're adults, with adult responsibilities. Most of us can't afford to take time off from work to travel to Washington for a demonstration. The bus companies and the airlines aren't going to give us free transportation, the hotels aren't going to give us free lodging, and our bosses aren't going to pat us on the back for skipping a day or two or three of work to march.

Next best thing might be a coordinated series of state marches, all held at the same time on the same day, in each state's capitol.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The problem with a non astro-turfed march is you get very few new recruits because everybody foots their own bill - and the march itself changes nothing. If it is successful, it gets ignored. You can look at a half-dozen disfavored causes that demonstrate this. Even now, Daily Mail is reporting 800,000 people showed up when the official count was 200,000.

If you hold a march and nobody shows up, it WILL be reported and sold as a sign of weakness.

Currently, a group is trying to organize nationwide pro-RKBA marches for April 14. https://m.facebook.com/events/182853385827205?__tn__=*s-R

I think that is going to bear out the statements I just made; but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[rickyrick]

Who paid for the busses?

 

[DaleA]

My memory might be playing me tricks here but haven't we had something like a grassroots 'buy a gun day' before?

 

[L2R]

I am not advocating we march. I think we can pretty much agree that it would not show well in public.
We cannot let them divide us. We can't stand by because we are revolver guys and don't care about mag bans or bump stocks or....
We must continue to support NRA and others. We must ALL contact our elected officials. I have done all of these.

What I am suggesting is that we need to vocal presence after these events and it needs to be the NRA but not in lawyer speak.

What if someone stood up after a mass shooting and said, "We feel just like the rest of you. We cry for the lives taken. We support you in your time of grief" No politics, no jabs and don't take to take advantage of the situation.
We don't need to start right off spouting the 2A or our views. What if the NRA said, "We all need to take a step back and agree that something should be done. Lets look at the top 20 things that do harm, let's talk about guns but let's talk about all of it. Then let's look at unchanged, real data. Let's look at what can make the biggest impact if we work together on what we can change."

We need to become champions of solutions not standing around watching others feed the world their spin. It may need to start by coming off the edge, meet in the middle, start some conversation and THEN lay out the facts.

Just my random thoughts. I think we are doing what we can, I don't believe the NRA has a positive image and it needs to change FAST!

 

[Lohman446]

The problem is not so much the social activism of the children it is that we are giving away the conversation. "March for our lives" does not, by title, advocate for gun control. In fact, if one only listens to the "headlines", the demonstrations are about school safety. Around here the seventeen minute walk out was billed as "17 minutes in memory of those who died" and was not, on the very face of it, about gun control.

The issue I see here is a lot of the kids marching have no idea what they are marching for. The talking heads spin it to whatever and some of those interviewed do talk about guns. However its hard to argue with a headline and how do we really argue with wanting safer schools? Everyone wants safer schools*.

I have no idea how to engage the gun control side of this without coming off as a jerk and heartless. I saw one of the marches as I was at the museum the other day and noted while it looked like a lot of people when you consider how large of an area they had converged from and how this seemed to be about a good time and not about accomplishing anything on the part of the marchers I really am not worried.

I made this comment in another debate. As long as they are combining hedonism and trying to leverage it into politics I'm really not that concerned. While I cannot speak for each individual marching I am certain that many are attending the marches and concerns not for political reasons but for hedonistic reasons - hence why we can afford to be a bit lax in taking it seriously.



*statistically our schools are actually fairly safe. We have been sold on the idea that they are unsafe because we publicize every incident from a vast cross section as if it is happening in your home town.

 

[5whiskey]

Who paid for the busses?

Don't forget hotel stays, meals, and many other needs. The buses are a relatively small expense.

I have a friend (actually my wife's friend) who seems to be moving more to the gun control side of the debate, and she has vehemently defended the kids in this movement. She is a good person and isn't dumb, and most of her responses are "the kids have a constitutional right to protest." I cannot argue with her on this... but she has also suggested that this movement is entirely organized by the kids and has no political backing. Posing this one question right here to her turned the light bulb on. The MSD high kids traveled by bus to Tallahassee from Parkland, a 6 hour trip, less than a week after the shooting. I doubt there were many fundraisers as there were many funerals, memorials, and other events to tend to. Someone paid for the buses, lodging, meals, and other needs while in Florida's capital. Did some of the parents likely chip in? Probably, but that trip had other sources of funding and even gun control advocates will admit it if you properly frame the debate.

Attacking and seeking to vilify the student marchers is a failed strategy.

I agree. The Parkland kids went through a traumatic experience. It would be imprudent to denigrate them. Many of the marchers have not experienced school violence. While I think trying to "vilify" them would be imprudent, subtly and respectfully highlighting their ignorance and immaturity on the topic is not.

The students are not being ‘brainwashed’ – they are not ‘dupes’ of Democrats/liberals, nor are they ‘crisis actors’; to make such claims is a failed strategy.

You are dead wrong on this. My daughter's middle school had participants of the walk out a few weeks back. 7th and 8th graders. Say what you want, but 7th and 8th graders are in no way mature enough to be taken seriously in a public policy discussion. I had to teach my oldest daughter the difference between a city, a state, and a country when she was going to 6th grade. She is not a dumb girl, the public school literally failed her that much. And now two years after I taught her that our town was not the county, and that the country we lived in was not North Carolina, I am to take her and her peer's views seriously?

An argument could be made about juniors and seniors in high school. I have met some very mature 17 and 18 year olds. My son was one of them. He had a full-time job at 16, graduated at 17, joined the military at 18, and married at 20. He has been self-sufficient for several years. Despite this, I still would not go back in time and give much weight to his opinions on public policy when he was 18. But I would still believe he at least deserved a voice on the topic.

 

[zukiphile]

The issue I see here is a lot of the kids marching have no idea what they are marching for. The talking heads spin it to whatever and some of those interviewed do talk about guns. However its hard to argue with a headline and how do we really argue with wanting safer schools? Everyone wants safer schools*.

I have no idea how to engage the gun control side of this without coming off as a jerk and heartless.

Our culture assigns a romantic allure to protest movements. I don't think it makes one a heartless jerk to see children playing protestor and acknowledging that this is what they are doing. Truth be told, protesting as a matter of fashion and pretense was popular before any of these children were born, and it was done by adults.

An argument could be made about juniors and seniors in high school. I have met some very mature 17 and 18 year olds. My son was one of them. He had a full-time job at 16, graduated at 17, joined the military at 18, and married at 20. He has been self-sufficient for several years. Despite this, I still would not go back in time and give much weight to his opinions on public policy when he was 18. But I would still believe he at least deserved a voice on the topic.

Your son sounds like a solid young man. As I navigate my own failures as a parent, I am even more impressed that any kid turns out well. Yet, even kids who are a mess get a voice on any topic. Adults with disasterous lives too.

We get to distinguish between someone having a voice and someone saying something thoughtful, important or true.

 

[Lohman446]

Our culture assigns a romantic allure to protest movements. I don't think it makes one a heartless jerk to see children playing protestor and acknowledging that this is what they are doing. Truth be told, protesting as a matter of fashion and pretense was popular before any of these children were born, and it was done by adults.

I think, at least for me, it is why simply disregarding the protests seems reasonable. The majority of people in it will move onto the next cause or grow bored. The only thing I don't like about it is this inverse correlation that is being (incorrectly IMO) drawn between guns and safety. There is just no way to address the protesters in mass.

I compare this to the mass protests over Vietnam. While the US did withdraw from Vietnam the hedonism mixed in with the protests assured there would be no long term change to US policies. As long as these protests are hedonistic in nature and scheduled to fit in to otherwise busy lives of the protesters they are easy to ignore. Also because they are easy and to some degree enjoyable for the protesters I question their commitment to the cause. In this case I am not certain they are actually committed to any specific policy to help that cause.

We get to distinguish between someone having a voice and someone saying something thoughtful, important or true.

Very easy to say "make our schools safe." Very hard to actually give specific policies that will do that.

 

[5whiskey]

Your son sounds like a solid young man.

He is, but because of this...

my own failures as a parent

I dare not take much credit for it. I attribute it to good fortune and Divine Providence.

And I also agree that being immature or irresponsible does not necessarily remove your right to be heard... but were I a journalist and had an interest in responsible journalism I would have ethical concerns with championing a movement of juveniles who openly rip up copies of the constitution because of a hash tag slogan.

 

[TomNJVA]

I suspect this is more of an emotional flare-up than a movement. Peoples emotions were stirred and they need a release, sort of like punching a wall in frustration. Once they have had their release most will go back to their daily lives and only a small group of hardliners will attempt to keep it going.

This too shall pass, and hopefully many young people will at least hear the opposing side in the debate. In spite of the biased efforts to close their minds, young people do think....eventually.

 

[jrinne0430]

Typically I would ignore the reactions (march/protest) however; this recent shooting resulted in FL passing a law so that 18yr olds cannot buy firearms and a three day waiting period. In addition, the fed budget that was just signed by Trump added the NICS Fix and Trump’s admins just banned bump stocks. These are Major gun control laws. What will happen after the next shooting? There is potentially more to this...

 

[Evan Thomas]

...juveniles who openly rip up copies of the constitution because of a hash tag slogan.

This is false, and it's a really good example of the kind of thing we very much need to avoid if we want to engage with these people, both kids and adults, in a respectful way. Unfortunately, it's not just the other side that's susceptible to propaganda.

The image on which this claim is based was photoshopped from an original photo which appeared on the cover of "Teen Vogue."

From Snopes:
FALSE.
As multiple sources pointed out ... these images were digitally manipulated versions of ones taken in conjunction with a TeenVogue op-ed by Emma González about gun control, the originals of which showed González tearing up shooting range targets, not a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[doofus47]

rickyrick:

Who paid for the busses?

Are you saying "follow the money?" I wish there were investigative reporters who were (edit: not) too busy interviewing ex-porn stars to do non-popular work.

I think that the fire driving the youth movement is less about guns and more about "purpose." Young kids for reasons both social and age-related don't have a lot of opportunity to do something "meaningful" and this is their opportunity to "make a difference." It's very giddy stuff. Couple that self-congratulatory high with a pinch of righteousness anger (over someone else's hurt) and a jigger of "don't know anyone sane who thinks they need a gun" and this is a movement that doesn't have a downside. Heck yeah, the average 16 year old is going to jump into that with both feet and eyes closed every time. It reminds me a bit of the "get in touch with nature" movement back in 70s. My cousins were giddy about "nature" until they went camping and got chewed up by mosquitos. It will have to burn itself out on its own; attempts by "anyone over 30" to bring up crazy ideas like "reasoned argument" or "technical requirements" will be fuel for the fire of us vs. them.

Honestly, it's nice that young people wish to engage in public debate. An involved citizenship is essential for a robust democracy or republic. That said, an educated citizenship is essential to chart a wise political course.

The recent protests remind me a bit of the tea party movement: lots of anger about lots of topics. However, the goals of the recent marchers lend themselves to a better expectation of results, in my unprofessional opinion.
The tea partiers failed to seriously organize their priorities to make hard decisions once they got a toe in the door at the national level and their results were diluted; for example, they never decided if they were more for debt reduction than they were for a strong military. Were they willing to shut down the government rather than let it continue in a poor fashion? In the end, they voted status quo as no one wants their constituents to be unsafe.
By contrast, this movement can basically be unified behind a general feel-good ideas of "better mental health care" and "no gun violence" and well, who sits around rooting for gun violence (except hollywood script writers and hollywood action film stars...) or for more crazy people?

As a legislative bonus, they already have a a few core ideas to achieve some of their goals: "Ban X, Ban Y, Ban Z." It's hard to dilute an up/down vote on one topic that has no down side for most of the population, since less than 50% of people own guns and even some of those don't care about such things as ARs, high capacity magazines nor UBCs. The items on their agenda that require actual planning and preparation and monetary and medical resources--for example "better mental health care"--are more than likely going to founder on the legislative shoals for the same reasons that the tea party "agenda" failed, complexity.

I am old--as my driver's license won't stop telling me--and I carry with me the prejudices of my generation. I come from a different time when people dressed up to do serious work: suits and ties for business, law, church. Have you ever seen a picture of MLK at a civil rights speech NOT wearing a suit and tie? Serious work involving serious ideas and thinking is accompanied in my mind by serious composure. I look at the picture of the kids leading these marches in torn jeans and crop tops and I'm thinking the same thing I did when I watched Bill Clinton in his Blues Brother shades playing sax on the Arsenio Hall show in 1992: "Come back when you're ready to lead." I think that the world has moved on from my views and we'd better prepare for a day when a poorly informed populace will clamor for poorly reasoned legislative action never designed to achieve measurable goals.

The system was set up a three corner Republic for this reason. Just as President Trump is a litmus test for the checks and balances system, I think that the near future will have a similar test of the checks and balances system involving firearm rights.

Living on the cutting edge of history is kind of fun, enjoy the ride while you can.

 

[Lohman446]

Have you ever seen a picture of MLK at a civil rights speech NOT wearing a suit and tie?

This is the movement I was contrasting it to in my mind. When marching almost guaranteed the dogs being let out on you and / or being sprayed with a fire hose as well as the threat of severe bodily harm or death it would be hard to imagine that those marching where not serious about the cause. As a "tactical" side to the protest when it was done during working hours and those doing it were important to societal comforts it could not have hurt.

These "let's all get together on the weekend with some signs and march around for a couple hours before going home or out to eat" protests... I just don't believe that they have the investment in them by the individual protesters that others have had. It is like doing political marches has become a hobby for some individuals.

I think its important to articulate why we decide to stand aside and just let it be. I was thinking Saturday as I watched it from a distance that "we can't just let them have the tag 'make our schools safe'" We can because there is no good way to engage and no single voice to engage. Our "fight" must be on an individual level. Not with the leaders who claim to speak for the group and will not be swayed but by those in the group who, absent peer pressure, can be.

 

[zukiphile]

It is like doing political marches has become a hobby for some individuals.

I generally think of hobbies as harmless.

There is a sense of grandiosity in the idea that walking around with a placard is effective political action.

When I was in school, girls and the guys who were trying to get their attention staged "Take back the Night" marches in which upper middle class college students took an evening out from reading, drinking and listening to music to bravely stand up against the big pro-rape lobby by walking around a sleepy college berg chanting one thing or another.

It had all the reality and political significance of a Civil War re-enactment.

 

[rickyrick]

It’s literally the easiest thing to do. Except for the marches that degrade into riots.
Wish I had bought stock in poster board a year and a half ago.

 

[5whiskey]

This is false, and it's a really good example of the kind of thing we very much need to avoid if we want to engage with these people, both kids and adults, in a respectful way. Unfortunately, it's not just the other side that's susceptible to propaganda.

The image on which this claim is based was photoshopped from an original photo which appeared on the cover of "Teen Vogue."

Thank you for correcting me I was not aware of that.