Today I joined the NRA thanks to David Hogg

[SPEMack618]

I don't think the NRA is perfect by any means but they are the best dog in the fight.

And also, the regular NRA does more to grow the gun culture by their support of youth shooting programs than any chest bumping mouth breather at an open carry rally with an SKS.

But that being said, the NRA-ILA and the SAF are who I send checks too outside of my dues.

Before you panic buy another 100 PMags, how about sending a check to those guys?

 

[k4swb]

This was not the fault of the NRA, even if you hate the NRA, the organization had nothing to do with this event. Legal law abiding gun owners had nothing to do with this.

Everyone please remember that the NRA is made up of "legal law abiding gun owners" it's not just some organization. It's millions of PEOPLE.

 

[rickyrick]

I’ve vistited schools that you cannot walk in the front door.
I’ve visited schools that an officer was in sight.
My high school had 3 real police officers there back in the 1980s. Also, at any time a teacher wasn’t in class they were outside monitoring. We had to go off campus to fist fight

I went to pick my stepson up from high school early one day back in 2015, and an officer intercepted me before I got to the front door. So it is very possible to secure a school.
Yeah sure nothing is 100% but it can be done.
They can secure the staff lounge no problem.
I can’t get to the Pseudoephedrine at the super market very easily.
I sure bet I couldn’t get into jimmy kimmels house without being noticed.

We secure what we want to secure, seems as though we don’t want to secure schools.
They could be reconstructed so it would be easier to secure. We just choose not to, we choose to upgrade city hall, we pay for catered luncheons for staff. We pay for unnecessary wars, but we won’t invest in our children.

Even though there needs to be a solution, this is not the fault of the NRA, or its members. NRA members are not murderers or complicit in murders.

 

[zxcvbob]

We secure what we want to secure, seems as though we don’t want to secure schools.
They could be reconstructed so it would be easier to secure. We just choose not to, we choose to upgrade city hall, we pay for catered luncheons for staff. We pay for unnecessary wars, but we won’t invest in our children.

Even though there needs to be a solution, this is not the fault of the NRA, or its members. NRA members are not murderers or complicit in murders.

Two things:

1) if we stop using the kid's name in public forums, maybe he will shut up and go away.

2) Perhaps we choose not to harden schools because those in charge *like* school shootings. It gives them a chance to get on TV and act self-righteous in front of a national audience.

(why does the reply button not quote anymore?)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We secure what we want to secure, seems as though we don’t want to secure schools.
They could be reconstructed so it would be easier to secure. We just choose not to, we choose to upgrade city hall, we pay for catered luncheons for staff. We pay for unnecessary wars, but we won’t invest in our children.

I agree. I think I may have commented previously (albeit maybe not on this forum site) that what we need isn't gun control, it's stupid control. And the stupid applies to the school boards who decide what to do (or NOT do) regarding school security.

Example (please bear with me):

In 2005, the high school serving my town and two adjacent towns was gearing up for a major renovation/alteration/addition project. "Major" meaning around $40 million of 2005 dollars. In mid-2005, as the project was about ready to be let out for bids, I was engaged to perform a review of the final construction documents as a check for building and fire safety code compliance. I did that, I found and reported a number of issues, and the issues were addressed and corrected. Fine.

Keep in mind that a project of that scale and scope doesn't get designed on a week, or even a month. In fact, I know from having been on a previous building committee that the project had been cooking for almost ten years. Since design on the final project began sometime in 2002 or 2003, it was just a few years after Columbine (April, 1999), so the school board was paying a lot of lip service to "school security" so they couldn't have a repeat of Columbine.

Consequently, knowing that security was supposed to be a top priority, I was astonished to find that all the classrooms in the new wings had glass sidelights adjacent to the corridor doors. It wasn't a code violation, so I couldn't cite it as such. But I was concerned. I called the Deputy Chief of Police and discussed it with him; he agreed that was pretty dumb. So I took my concern to the school board, and they took it to the architect. The architect's response (remember, the architect had been charged with designing for maximum security) was: "We like it."

The new wings were built with the glass sidelights. Obviously, that's a weak link. What good does it do to lock down classrooms against a shooter when there's a sheet of glass next to the door? One or two shots, the glass goes away, and the shooter can reach through the [former] sidelight and open the door to the classroom.

On other school projects at around the same time, I dealt with schools who were very concerned about having the best locks on the classroom doors so the teachers could lock the doors if there was a problem. I asked if they had any "floating" teachers (teachers who don't teach in their classroom, but who "float" from one room to another to teach a specialized subject). Answer: Yes. I asked if the floaters are given the keys to every room they teach in. Answer: crickets + deer in headlights look. Then I asked if any of their teachers ever got sick. Answer: Yes. Do the substitutes get a key to the classroom they're teaching in? Answer: No, the custodian opens the room in the morning and locks at after the end of the day. Question: How does a substitute lock down the classroom if he/she doesn't have the key? Answer: Crickets + deer in headlights look.

THAT's why we need stupidity control. The people who are in charge of making the key decisions affecting school safety and security frankly don't know diddly about the subject, and they're too absorbed in gearing up for cool stuff like Common Core to spend any time educating themselves about what's really involved in making a school safe.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, the town adjacent to my town proudly announced that they were instituting new measures to make the grammar school safe. I knew the building inspector in that town then (he has since retired), so I called him up and asked him what they were doing to make the school secure. The system they were so proudly announcing was exactly the same system that had just been installed at Sandy Hook -- and which failed completely at Sandy Hook.

As the saying goes, "Ignorance can be educated, but stupid is forever." If we want to get serious about school security, we need to work on stupid control.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I've already posted one warning about personal attacks on this young man, and I've now deleted several posts that ignored that. It's both dumb and inappropriate. Don't do it -- there will be consequences.

 

[johnelmore]

I do apologize if there are any personal attacks on anyone in this thread. I certainly didn't author a thread for that.

My opinion is if you put yourself out on a public stage and throw out strong opinions it sounds like you want to have a debate. In this case the people on that public stage are throwing out very strong words such as calling the NRA "terrorists". They are telling us that we have the blood of children on our hands. I also saw some creative signage that seems particularly very strong, profound and insulting. I dont think anyone here appreciates being compared to "terrorists" or having the blood of children spattered on you in the figurative sense. There is a tendency to want to respond in similar strong words to these profound allegations and, mind you, I'm trying to word this particular paragraph very light heartedly and appropriately...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My opinion is if you put yourself out on a public stage and throw out strong opinions it sounds like you want to have a debate.

I disagree. I think people who put themselves on a public stage and utter pronouncements generally believe they are absolutely correct, and they hope to influence other people to believe as they do. Unless they say they wish to debate, why would you think they want to have a debate? I think nothing could be farther from their minds.

In this case the people on that public stage are throwing out very strong words such as calling the NRA "terrorists". They are telling us that we have the blood of children on our hands. I also saw some creative signage that seems particularly very strong, profound and insulting. I dont think anyone here appreciates being compared to "terrorists" or having the blood of children spattered on you in the figurative sense. There is a tendency to want to respond in similar strong words to these profound allegations

I agree completely. I am not a terrorist, and I do not have anyone's blood on my hands. I don't appreciate being tarred with that brush. But those who say such things believe them. But -- again -- they are not looking to debate, they are looking to convince. They don't care what you think because, of course, you are wrong and they are right.

 

[zukiphile]

I guess I was too lazy or just made excuses in the past, but I thought now is a great time to join the NRA so I took the leap. What made me join was David Hogg and the March For Our lives protest. It was pretty obvious the rallies were not about school safety or firearm safety, but an outright attack on politicians and the NRA.
***
Thank you to the Democrats, thank you to David Hogg. I would have never voted nor joined the NRA if it was not for your sincere efforts. I am truly appreciative of your work.

I'm confident you weren't the only one similarly motivated by the rally silliness.

At a personal level, I am curious about the degree to which his behavior is being regulated by the adults in his life. I doubt any of us would prefer to have had the rough edges rounded off our personalities on video and before millions of people. In another week, he may wish he hadn't made the boycott threat or called for public action when he didn't get into the schools he wanted. Some adult might have urged restraint.

At a political level, a child acting as a child wouldn't motivate people to join the NRA but for the degree to which it reflects the similar lack of perspective and foresight in adult advocates of greater regulation. I haven't read any of these kids complaining about shoulder things that go up; in some respects they may be more polished on this issue than some of their adult counterparts.

 

[Lohman446]

At a political level, a child acting as a child wouldn't motivate people to join the NRA

David Hogg is 18 (or close to it, Wikipedia lists him as born in 2000) and thus is or will be voting soon.

While his rhetoric may be immature and full of the bravado that many of us had at 18 it is a mistake to dismiss him and those who follow him simply as simply children. They can, and presumably will, vote in upcoming elections. If those who act as proponents for gun control effectively create a bunch of single issue voters who favor gun control (even if they grow out of it) it could pose political jeopardy if they can manage to engage them enough to show up and vote.

 

[zukiphile]

While his rhetoric may be immature and full of the bravado that many of us had at 18 it is a mistake to dismiss him and those who follow him simply as simply children. They can, and presumably will, vote in upcoming elections.

As all children will be eligible to do when they turn 18. It does not dismiss a child to identify him as one.

Contrary to dismissing what any of these children are doing because they are children, the observation to which you respond is that they have an effect like adult advocates because there are similarities to their adult counterparts.

If those who act as proponents for gun control effectively create a bunch of single issue voters who favor gun control (even if they grow out of it) it could pose political jeopardy if they can manage to engage them enough to show up and vote.

Yes, if they are effective, they will be effective. If Johnelmore is reflective of the way they are being effective, their net effect may be voters who see calls for further restriction as lacking perspective and foresight generally.

 

[Lohman446]

Yes, if they are effective, they will be effective.

Do I get an award for stating the obvious while being verbose? Your right that my comment was pretty solidly circular.

 

[zukiphile]

Do I get an award for stating the obvious while being verbose? Your right that my comment was pretty solidly circular.

Yes, but it will take a long time for me to present it, and it won't feel like an accomplishment by the time I loop back to the beginning. (Forgive my failure to employ emoticons - I don't favor them, but that isn't intended to convey hostility.)

The problem these children represent is that they are rhetorical human shields. Like the mothers of those who died in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, or widows of men who died in 9/11, the Jersey Girls, the idea is to offer an advocate to whom people will be disinclined to respond owing to their personal history. Whatever spills out of them is supposed to be off limits because look at what happened to them. That's the strength of the rhetorical human shield.

The weakness is that the more they present as polished spokesman for an established movement, the less weight their experience may carry as a deterrent to opponents of the policies they urge.

Johnelmore's reaction seems unrelated to their recent experience and more to the odious qualities of their message.

 

[5whiskey]

While his rhetoric may be immature and full of the bravado that many of us had at 18 it is a mistake to dismiss him and those who follow him simply as simply children. They can, and presumably will, vote in upcoming elections. If those who act as proponents for gun control effectively create a bunch of single issue voters who favor gun control (even if they grow out of it) it could pose political jeopardy if they can manage to engage them enough to show up and vote.

This is a very real danger, however I for one am grateful that the current crop of anti-gunners are spouting their true beliefs and going straight to the throat. No more "common sense compromise" crap. Nope, let them march with a bunch of signs that call for banning all firearms (*you can keep your muskets!), and let former SCOTUS Justices pen op-eds on why they believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. They are seeming to skip straight past the "No one needs an AR15" or "You don't need 10 rounds to kill a deer." Nope, their current wish list would leave us with muzzleloaders, MAYBE a bolt action rifle, and perhaps (though heavily restricted) a revolver.

Why am I glad they are up front about this? Why does it tick me off when I see them comparing the NRA to terrorists, but I also grin and say "keep it up kids?" Because if it were a soft approach to gun control that was measured and reasoned, we might stand a chance of losing this current fight. The emotional fire of "okay, we'll give you muskets and that's it" and "the NRA are terrorists" will likely disenfranchise even some more moderate gun control advocates, much less almost any gun owner... even the sportsman who insist "we don't need AR15s."

Look at the NRA donation numbers. It tripled in February, and something tells me that strong rise is directly correlated with this movement. The very title of this thread anecdotally proves my point. No, we should be grateful this movement isn't more strategic. Bloomberg is a strategist, and he has been effective at nibbling around the edges on gun control state by state. I think he was hoping for this to be a chance to cast his lot with something bigger than nibbling, but I suspect it will not work out so well.

At the end of the day, we need all the support at the NRA, GOA, 2AF, March for our Rights (look it up on Facebook) that we can get. We can't dismiss this movement as a non-threat, but we don't need to feel defeated before things even start good either. I assure you things are not as bleak as some may believe.

 

[rickyrick]

They have laid out thier cards.

They want all semi autos; rifles and pistols.

The danger is the bigger the bite they wanna take, the bigger the compromise someone will give them.

 

[5whiskey]

The danger is the bigger the bite they wanna take, the bigger the compromise someone will give them.

True, but that works both ways. The bigger the bite the more emboldened resistance will become. I hope.

 

[Lohman446]

True, but that works both ways. The bigger the bite the more emboldened resistance will become. I hope.

Little secret about me that most people on this board will not like. I'm willing to give up future manufacture of the AR-15. Yes I know all the reasons why this is a horrible thing and why it makes me hypocritical in regards to gun rights and the effective right of self defense and the second amendment and... I get it. Horribly unpopular view on this board. In that same line I am also willing to discuss, on the table, eliminating future manufacture of high capacity magazines (10 rounds). Yep, I know, slippery slope and all that. I know.

Edit: I'm willing to discuss, for instance, what should be on the NFA list (maybe "assault weapons", maybe high-cap magazines in a way that does not make each one subject to a tax stamp) and what should not be (for instance silencers)

I'm also willing to have a discussion about what the age of majority is in this country and that 18 may need to be reevaluated but not just for gun rights.

With the current climate, the current people driving the rhetoric, and the current bans being discussed... Nope. Not even interested in coming to the table. My definition of "reasonable" is painted as extreme by the current rhetoric and I have no interest in any compromise when that is how discussions start.

So in the end 5whiskey and others who have stated similar concepts are right. Of course when I discuss "I" statements its a poor sample size and there are times that the ideas I bring to the table are not well flushed out so there are plenty of caveats.

 

[rickyrick]

I agree that the age of adulthood means you are free to make adult decisions. If it’s 21 then so be it. If it’s 18 then so be it. Enough of this choosing decisions for adults.

 

[rickyrick]

True, but that works both ways. The bigger the bite the more emboldened resistance will become. I hope.

This recent push seems to be the strongest this time around, could be me.

Maybe the complacent gun owners will wake up and squash this.
I’ve donated to gun rights groups several times lately. That’s something new.

 

[carguychris]

The problem these children represent is that they are rhetorical human shields. Like the mothers of those who died in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, or widows of men who died in 9/11, the Jersey Girls, the idea is to offer an advocate to whom people will be disinclined to respond owing to their personal history. Whatever spills out of them is supposed to be off limits because look at what happened to them. That's the strength of the rhetorical human shield.

Perhaps the concept of the stalking horse is more appropriate in this case.

If the current push for gun control bears little fruit for its major backers, I predict that the sophomoric rhetorical excesses of Hogg and so forth will be blamed.