Today I joined the NRA thanks to David Hogg

[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]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

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.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

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]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

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]

Originally Posted by Lohman

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.

Originally Posted by Lohman

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]

Originally Posted by Lohman

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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

[johnelmore]

Think of it this way. If you woke up to the usual cable news then it would be another day and you would feel that no action should be taken. However, when you wake up to students doing mass protests rallying for sweeping control or bans or trashing out your favorite firearms group...when you wake up to a retired Supreme Court Justice writing about repealing the 2nd Amendment...you know this is no ordinary day and its time to take action.

I hope for more news articles, protests and rallies on banning firearms. I look forward to it. Thats because it will get us up out of our usual sitting position and take action. Thanks Justice Stevens, thanks Mr Hogg...we needed that wakeup call.

[Chopper357]

Its always been a mystery to me why gun owners would not want to support the NRA.... Nit-picking and finding fault seems like an excuse to not pay dues..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Supporting an organization and pointing out that their personnel or strategy may be ineffective are two different things.

If you pay money to someone, you want them to do the job well.

How dare all those supporters of Obama, not support Hillary and switch their votes to Trump. Were they just being picky?

Tribal loyalty of any type as compared to reasoned action decisions has been a bane to humanity for a long time.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by carguychris

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.

The stalking horse here would be the issue of school safety. I think it's a fairly transparent one when the murderer didn't use a bump stock or "high" capacity magazines, but a lot of the focus is on those.

The human shield concept involves the person of the advocate specifically. Sometimes John McCain, Bob Kerry and Chuck Hagel used this to limited effect in Congress. Hagel has a great record of enlisted service in Vietnam, Kerry came back with one fewer leg, and McCain suffered greatly in captivity and behaved admirably. None of those are actually a qualification of expertise in foreign affairs, yet each of them has used the experience in policy arguments (Kerry on only two occasions I can recall).

Deploying the Parkland students as advocates on the gun control issue is a more brazen use of the human shield. Even here, criticism is muted not based on the merit of the criticism, but because criticism might not "look" good. That's entirely about who they are rather than what they say.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The stalking horse here would be the issue of school safety. I think it's a fairly transparent one when the murderer didn't use a bump stock or "high" capacity magazines, but a lot of the focus is on those.

He also didn't use a military rifle, yet the students are proclaiming that he did. On the other hand, it seems the students are now calling for a ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms. In short, they don't know anything about guns, they just parrot what the anti-gunners have been feeding them.

Which is sad. I can't blame them for wanting to feel safe in their schools, but that ship sailed a long time ago. If it's not a random shooter, they still are very much at risk of bullying, and schools in general do their best to pretend that bullying doesn't exist, even where it does. I saw that with my own daughter in our local school. The kids are justified in asking that the schools be made safe, but they don't understand that the gun ban they're calling for won't -- can't -- guarantee that.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Deploying the Parkland students as advocates on the gun control issue is a more brazen use of the human shield. Even here, criticism is muted not based on the merit of the criticism, but because criticism might not "look" good. That's entirely about who they are rather than what they say.

True. It's just not a good "optic" to attack children. Might as well condemn Mom and apple pie.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Using victims is a well known effect in trying to mold opinions. All politicians use the vivid instance. Using a victim that is valued by society (women, kids) is common.

I fail to see why folks are so shocked by it. Pick a topic and a vivid horrible instance will be featured in the PR campaigns.

[Koolmoose]

I renewed my membership for five years because it was due. I also signed up my kid for one year to boost their membership numbers. $25 for one year. We p for his AAA membership annually so I’ll add the money to that account.

If you are able sign up another. More strength through more votes!

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

He also didn't use a military rifle, yet the students are proclaiming that he did. On the other hand, it seems the students are now calling for a ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms. In short, they don't know anything about guns, they just parrot what the anti-gunners have been feeding them.

IMO, he did use a military rifle. An AR-15 is a military rifle, just it lacks the automatic fire capability that the military uses. But otherwise, it's the same gun. IMO, gun rights people shoot themselves in the foot and are playing defense by trying to pretend otherwise. The problem with that whole argument about "military guns," "weapons of war," etc...is that pretty much all guns are either military, formerly military, or functionally-identical to military designs. Lever-actions, bolt-actions, pump-action shotguns, semiautomatic handguns, semiautomatic rifles, etc...the military uses them all today minus lever-actions, which were military in the past.

So IMO, I would say to such people that yes, he used a military gun, but that's because pretty much all the guns you can buy are either military or functionally identical to military, minus automatic fire on certain ones. Arms are arms. Tools of war, as war is not just something that happens between nations but also between individuals. Not all weapons of war are something people have a right to, but arms, the basic tools of war (today, specifically, small arms), are a fundamental right people do have. They are a basic tool citizens possess just as citizens also possess hand tools. Law enforcement make use of them and military make use of them. That is what the whole issue of the concept of the right to keep and bear arms is about.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

IMO, he did use a military rifle. An AR-15 is a military rifle, just it lacks the automatic fire capability that the military uses. But otherwise, it's the same gun.

When I was in graduate school I took a History of Architecture class that was taught by an expatriate Cuban architect. He had a very heavy accent and it was difficult to understand most of what he said. But he had one pet phrase, which I still remember, and your argument echoes Mario exactly:

"So all the time ees the very same thing, essept ees different."

I carried an M16 in Vietnam. An AR-15 looks like an M16, but it's not the same. A Springfield M1A is not the same as the M14 I trained on in Army Basic Training. I'm not pretending anything ... if the AR-15 is not the same as the rifles the military carries and uses, then it's different. Functionally, an AR-15 is no different than a Ruger Mini 14, which (until the advent of David Hogg & cohorts) wasn't even on the gun banners' radar. Your argument that an AR-15 is the same as an M16 ... except for the things that make it different ... seems illogical to me.

[44 AMP]

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
– Tench Coxe

Arguing about whether the AR-15 is a military arm, or not, is a red herring to the fundamental discussion.

We failed, in the beginning to argue the only valid point, that we have a right to "military weapons". Instead, we argued that it wasn't a military weapon, (which, it wasn't) but thereby conceding their point that we shouldn't have military weapons at all.

Clearly the quote from Tench Coxe (and other writings of the Founders) showed that they believed otherwise.