would it solve all problems? No. But we need to take steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands and protect people, especially children. There needs to be a standard national background check that is comprehensive and have it include any private gun sales/gun shows. You want to sell a gun to your neighbor, fine. But you have to go to a licensed FFL dealer to do so and buyer should pay a fee for that test. We also need medical professionals to actually update a registry for people who have been seen or diagnosed with a mental illness. Perhaps even instituting a "no gun" list, like the no fly list. If you've been convicted of assault, especially domestic violence, you can't buy a gun ever or at least for a certain time frame. These are some of my other suggestions: Raise the age restriction to purchase all guns and ammo to 21. Revolvers, shotguns and non-semi auto rifles/guns are ok to buy for anyone who can pass a background check but ONLY after you pass a basic safety course. Any semi-auto handgun you must obtain a license/permit to purchase those weapons with stipulations above. Possible ban on AR or AK style or any semi-auto rifle. If not a ban, add an additional license/permit fee for these on top of everything above. Ban large capacity magazines and bump stocks. You don't need them. Create a standard Concealed Carry curriculum that includes both shooting and written tests for those that wish to get one.(my CC class included both written and shooting test, along with gun safety and laws pertaining to carrying).
these are just some of my thoughts on the subject. I don't really see any of the above infringing on the 2nd Amendment, but does make it tougher to buy a gun. While I own several semi-auto handguns, I don't really need them. I like them better than my revolvers, and enjoy shooting them more at the range, but I would be willing to pay a fee for a license/permit to have one. AR/AK's are fun to shoot, but do we really need them? I don't see the purpose for them other than they look cool. Agree or disagree. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
Those who can't do, teach. Maybe these cops will become teachers.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
That is beyond fucked up. What a mess. They're lucky none of them accidentally shot each other. Terrible tactics on their part.
Wow, with cops like that...San Fran must not have very stringent requirements for becoming a police officer. Look at the stumbling over each other...very poor show on their parts. That being said, most police officers are not actually held at very high standards for shooting accuracy unless they are on a specialized team.
That is beyond fucked up. What a mess. They're lucky none of them accidentally shot each other. Terrible tactics on their part.
Wow, with cops like that...San Fran must not have very stringent requirements for becoming a police officer. Look at the stumbling over each other...very poor show on their parts. That being said, most police officers are not actually held at very high standards for shooting accuracy unless they are on a specialized team.
Shouldn’t everyone be held to a high shooting accuracy prior to be given a gun, cop and “responsible” gun owner alike?
Why is it that if a celebrity wants an assault rifle ban they are a hypocrite for having armed security? That argument makes no sense. I'd bet none of them are armed with AR-15s or AK-47s.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Please let me know when government tyranny strikes Australia and Norway and their residents end up living in a facist, communist, cult like state because they gave up their firearms.
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
I got as far as the title and saw where this was going.
Vancouver-based chain succumbs to pressure and distances itself from the U.S. gun and ammunitions maker
"Succumbs to pressure". If you want real change you need to hit them in the pocketbook and get organized. Keep pressuring companies and they will do something.
Unfortunately there will be another divide in the country. Rather than try to do something amicable to reduce gun violence(I do blame the NRA for this) there will be an extreme change to rules/laws.
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
I got as far as the title and saw where this was going.
Vancouver-based chain succumbs to pressure and distances itself from the U.S. gun and ammunitions maker
"Succumbs to pressure". If you want real change you need to hit them in the pocketbook and get organized. Keep pressuring companies and they will do something.
Unfortunately there will be another divide in the country. Rather than try to do something amicable to reduce gun violence(I do blame the NRA for this) there will be an extreme change to rules/laws.
With every live birth, the child gets issued a gun along with a social security number. Parents can choose from a vairity of models and types. Lets just arm everyone at birth. Problem solved.
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
I got as far as the title and saw where this was going.
Vancouver-based chain succumbs to pressure and distances itself from the U.S. gun and ammunitions maker
"Succumbs to pressure". If you want real change you need to hit them in the pocketbook and get organized. Keep pressuring companies and they will do something.
Unfortunately there will be another divide in the country. Rather than try to do something amicable to reduce gun violence(I do blame the NRA for this) there will be an extreme change to rules/laws.
With every live birth, the child gets issued a gun along with a social security number. Parents can choose from a vairity of models and types. Lets just arm everyone at birth. Problem solved.
Why is it that if a celebrity wants an assault rifle ban they are a hypocrite for having armed security? That argument makes no sense. I'd bet none of them are armed with AR-15s or AK-47s.
their logic is the celebrity has security to protect them, "regular" people don't, so they should be able to arm themselves with a tank.
That is beyond fucked up. What a mess. They're lucky none of them accidentally shot each other. Terrible tactics on their part.
Wow, with cops like that...San Fran must not have very stringent requirements for becoming a police officer. Look at the stumbling over each other...very poor show on their parts. That being said, most police officers are not actually held at very high standards for shooting accuracy unless they are on a specialized team.
Shouldn’t everyone be held to a high shooting accuracy prior to be given a gun, cop and “responsible” gun owner alike?
Yeah, but you kind of have to get a gun before you can practice and become accurate too, lol. But I agree, if you are not going to practice and exercise safe handling, you have no reason to have one. It will do you no good if you have not practiced with it and learned its functions (and almost all have their specific quarks or specific functionality differences).
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
I got as far as the title and saw where this was going.
Vancouver-based chain succumbs to pressure and distances itself from the U.S. gun and ammunitions maker
"Succumbs to pressure". If you want real change you need to hit them in the pocketbook and get organized. Keep pressuring companies and they will do something.
Unfortunately there will be another divide in the country. Rather than try to do something amicable to reduce gun violence(I do blame the NRA for this) there will be an extreme change to rules/laws.
Well, yeah, although to be fair, MEC really is a very socially aware company in general. I seriously doubt they struggled with the decision as much as that headline suggests.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
Please let me know when government tyranny strikes Australia and Norway and their residents end up living in a facist, communist, cult like state because they gave up their firearms.
I’m sure that some of the more libertarian among us would argue that Norway already fits that bill. Personally, I think it’s an incredibly pleasant place to live. Takes all kinds, I guess.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Huh. I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move. Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
Because the argument for the 2nd Amendment in the US is not about being "enthusiastic" about guns. I've pasted below what I wrote in the thread about banning "assault weapons". I am against such a ban and was asked to explain why. This is what I wrote. It's pretty damn long and in two parts so no offense taken if you don't have time to read it or don't feel like it. Hope you've been well, by the way!
(Ok, I went a little nuts with the following, but it's late here and I've had a lot to say on this subject. Please forgive typos and some meandering as I've done no editing. Most of you probably disagree (as does Pearl Jam, apparently), but I respect you guys. Hopefully, you'll see that my opinion is born out of compassion and not some strange affinity for guns or violence.) Here goes...
I would be happy to explain my position, and I appreciate you not insinuating that I support mass murder or any of the other ridiculous and offensive comments I've seen on here with regard to gun owners and people who agree with my position on the second amendment. Neither side of this argument has a monopoly on compassion.
To be clear, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It's meant for killing people. Specifically, it's meant for killing tyrants and the soldiers of a tyrannical government. There are also very specific cases in which it would be deemed appropriate to use a firearm to protect yourself, family, and fellow citizen from imminent deadly harm.
With that out of the way, I'll share some of my background with you because it's pertinent to how my opinion on gun rights was formed. I'm not a "hillbilly, hunter clinging to his bible and his guns." I'm an atheist from New Jersey who's never hunted in his life. I've lived in New York City for much of my adult life and graduated from New York University and The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and Drama Studio in London. Hardly a cowboy. I own no camouflage or american flag clothing, no pick-up truck and no tactical gear. I've had my gun beliefs my entire life and have only recently purchased my first firearm. I don't fit the stereotype people have of gun owners and there are millions of people in America just like me. I'm a patriot, and I know people on the other side are as well. My heart breaks from gun violence the same as yours does. I will get to why I support gun rights, including access to AR-15 style rifles, but I ask you to bear with me. The following will largely discuss democide, defined as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Such death by government in just the 20th Century alone is estimated at over 262,000,000 world-wide and the best prevention is the rifle.
I was lucky to live in Prague as a young man. The principal of my school was the vice president of the newly independent state of Czech Republic. He and my teachers lived through the Velvet Revolution. It was during this time that I began to study democide. I learned about the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Czechoslovakian response after the war. The CZ government, with the support of the British and American governments, expelled millions of ethnic Germans from the country. It is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people guilty of simply speaking German, were killed during this process. Many were ripped out of their homes and shot and thousands were lined up in the street and run over with tanks and trucks. Video of this can be found on youtube. I mention this because it is one of the lesser known atrocities and genocides that took place during the 20th Century. Of course, the horrors of Hitler's crimes are almost indescribable, and I'm sure we're all familiar with most of them. I believe that the so-called "subjugated races" under Nazi rule should have had the right to defend themselves with firearms from those monsters, just as I believe every ethnic German man and woman in post-war Czechoslovakia should have had the right to shoot the bastards ripping them and their children from their homes to face certain death. There are many quotes concerning gun-control attributed to twentieth century dictators that may be dubious, but the following is confirmed true in the book, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." - Adolf Hitler, 1942 https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator, Anastasio Somoza, whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.
How about Cuba? Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, over-threw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.
Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.
I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree, of course. I draw the line at shotguns, handguns, and semi-auto rifles. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.
(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.)
(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?) http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html
The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School returned to class Wednesday morning two weeks and moral centuries after a tragic mass shooting ended the lives of 17 classmates and teachers. Sen. Marco Rubio marked their return by scolding them for being “infected” with “arrogance” and “boasting.” The Florida legislature marked their return by enacting a $67 million program to arm school staff, including teachers, over the objections of students and parents. Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill opted to welcome them back by ignoring their wishes on gun control, which might lead a cynic to believe that nothing has changed in America after yet another horrifying cycle of child murder and legislative apathy.
Now it’s time for them to change the conversation around education in America, and not just as it relates to guns in the classroom. The effectiveness of these poised, articulate, well-informed, and seemingly preternaturally mature student leaders of Stoneman Douglas has been vaguely attributed to very specific personalities and talents. Indeed, their words and actions have been so staggeringly powerful, they ended up fueling laughable claims about crisis actors, coaching, and fat checks from George Soros. But there is a more fundamental lesson to be learned in the events of this tragedy: These kids aren’t freaks of nature. Their eloquence and poise also represent the absolute vindication of the extracurricular education they receive at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.
The students of Stoneman Douglas have been the beneficiaries of the kind of 1950s-style public education that has all but vanished in America.
Despite the gradual erosion of the arts and physical education in America’s public schools, the students of Stoneman Douglas have been the beneficiaries of the kind of 1950s-style public education that has all but vanished in America and that is being dismantled with great deliberation as funding for things like the arts, civics, and enrichment are zeroed out. In no small part because the school is more affluent than its counterparts across the country (fewer than 23 percent of its students received free or reduced-price lunches in 2015–16, compared to about 64 percent across Broward County Public Schools) these kids have managed to score the kind of extracurricular education we’ve been eviscerating for decades in the United States. These kids aren’t prodigiously gifted. They’ve just had the gift of the kind of education we no longer value.
Part of the reason the Stoneman Douglas students have become stars in recent weeks is in no small part due to the fact that they are in a school system that boasts, for example, of a “system-wide debate program that teaches extemporaneous speaking from an early age.” Every middle and high school in the district has a forensics and public-speaking program. Coincidentally, some of the students at Stoneman Douglas had been preparing for debates on the issue of gun control this year, which explains in part why they could speak to the issues from day one.
The student leaders of the #NeverAgain revolt were also, in large part, theater kids who had benefited from the school’s exceptional drama program. Coincidentally, some of these students had been preparing to perform Spring Awakening, a rock musical from 2006. As the New Yorker describes it in an essay about the rise of the drama kids, that musical tackles the question of “what happens when neglectful adults fail to make the world safe or comprehensible for teen-agers, and the onus that neglect puts on kids to beat their own path forward.” Weird.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
lol like I said he has already started back peddling his tough stand on guns after last nights great NRA meeting at the WH , I hope the kids remember this for when they are allowed to vote ..
@october22 Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?
Absolutely not! No one should on principal, regardless of where you stand on the larger debate. Additionally, that kind of talk from a president only bolsters my argument for gun ownership. I understand we're emotional after this tragedy, and we should be. But the left's pernicious attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen, especially during a presidency they fear, almost feels like a mental disorder or a complete disregard for human history. You can show me all the studies you want about guns and gun control and how they lead or don't lead to whatever you want (I'll point out things like suicide, isolated gang activity and plenty of things that the author's used to skew them for their agenda), but one thing is certain, a disarmed population is one step closer to tyrannical rule. There is no argument against that.
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
The Young Repubes are welcome to appear on Faux News, Rushbo, InsanityHannity, without doctored emails, of course. What’s the matter? Brietbart doesn’t have as talented writers to produce puff pieces for alt-righters’ consumption?
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
Lol What arrogant trash. This article was only written because the author agrees with the message of this specific group of kids. Statistically, there must be students at that school who disagree with the ones we're seeing on television when it comes to solutions to gun violence. What's the explanation for that? Were those kids absent when the others were getting such an amazing education? Is the author admitting that a "good education" is one that programs children to become anti-gun and politically left? I was always under the assumption that a good education provides students with the ability to think for themselves.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
The Young Repubes are welcome to appear on Faux News, Rushbo, InsanityHannity, without doctored emails, of course. What’s the matter? Brietbart doesn’t have as talented writers to produce puff pieces for alt-righters’ consumption?
Great argument. I guess you win. The left has better puff-piece writers.
Also, if your argument is that the mainstream media doesn't have a left-leaning bias, then I guess we'll pretty much have to end it there.
Comments
San Francisco cops fire 65 shots in 15 seconds at murder suspect in dramatic video - Fox News https://apple.news/ANi473uHVQ36h_cY2mzNSOw
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I guess I don't expect Americans to give a fuck about what a Canadian company does in response to America's gun problem, but I think it's interesting that Mountain Equipment Coop (which has 5 million members - kind of like a Costco membership), has announced they will no longer buy any products made by Vista Outdoor products because Vista also makes US guns and ammo. MEC doesn't sell firearms, but they are one of those socially involved companies by reputation, and decided they don't want to support a gun manufacturer in any way... This was, though, a direct response to a petition for them to make the move.
Obviously gun enthusiasts are against this move... but really, how many people give a shit about gun enthusiasts' opinions on these things? Not me. Even if this is just a symbolic move more than anything else, I'm having trouble with any arguments against it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mec-vista-outdoor-1.4557071
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
we will find a way, we will find our place
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-norway-australia-gun-control-20180301-story.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Vancouver-based chain succumbs to pressure and distances itself from the U.S. gun and ammunitions maker
"Succumbs to pressure". If you want real change you need to hit them in the pocketbook and get organized. Keep pressuring companies and they will do something.
Unfortunately there will be another divide in the country. Rather than try to do something amicable to reduce gun violence(I do blame the NRA for this) there will be an extreme change to rules/laws.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
(Ok, I went a little nuts with the following, but it's late here and I've had a lot to say on this subject. Please forgive typos and some meandering as I've done no editing. Most of you probably disagree (as does Pearl Jam, apparently), but I respect you guys. Hopefully, you'll see that my opinion is born out of compassion and not some strange affinity for guns or violence.) Here goes...
I would be happy to explain my position, and I appreciate you not insinuating that I support mass murder or any of the other ridiculous and offensive comments I've seen on here with regard to gun owners and people who agree with my position on the second amendment. Neither side of this argument has a monopoly on compassion.
To be clear, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It's meant for killing people. Specifically, it's meant for killing tyrants and the soldiers of a tyrannical government. There are also very specific cases in which it would be deemed appropriate to use a firearm to protect yourself, family, and fellow citizen from imminent deadly harm.
With that out of the way, I'll share some of my background with you because it's pertinent to how my opinion on gun rights was formed. I'm not a "hillbilly, hunter clinging to his bible and his guns." I'm an atheist from New Jersey who's never hunted in his life. I've lived in New York City for much of my adult life and graduated from New York University and The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and Drama Studio in London. Hardly a cowboy. I own no camouflage or american flag clothing, no pick-up truck and no tactical gear. I've had my gun beliefs my entire life and have only recently purchased my first firearm. I don't fit the stereotype people have of gun owners and there are millions of people in America just like me. I'm a patriot, and I know people on the other side are as well. My heart breaks from gun violence the same as yours does. I will get to why I support gun rights, including access to AR-15 style rifles, but I ask you to bear with me. The following will largely discuss democide, defined as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Such death by government in just the 20th Century alone is estimated at over 262,000,000 world-wide and the best prevention is the rifle.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
I was lucky to live in Prague as a young man. The principal of my school was the vice president of the newly independent state of Czech Republic. He and my teachers lived through the Velvet Revolution. It was during this time that I began to study democide. I learned about the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Czechoslovakian response after the war. The CZ government, with the support of the British and American governments, expelled millions of ethnic Germans from the country. It is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people guilty of simply speaking German, were killed during this process. Many were ripped out of their homes and shot and thousands were lined up in the street and run over with tanks and trucks. Video of this can be found on youtube. I mention this because it is one of the lesser known atrocities and genocides that took place during the 20th Century. Of course, the horrors of Hitler's crimes are almost indescribable, and I'm sure we're all familiar with most of them. I believe that the so-called "subjugated races" under Nazi rule should have had the right to defend themselves with firearms from those monsters, just as I believe every ethnic German man and woman in post-war Czechoslovakia should have had the right to shoot the bastards ripping them and their children from their homes to face certain death. There are many quotes concerning gun-control attributed to twentieth century dictators that may be dubious, but the following is confirmed true in the book, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." - Adolf Hitler, 1942 https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Continued....
Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator, Anastasio Somoza, whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.
How about Cuba? Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, over-threw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.
Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.
I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree, of course. I draw the line at shotguns, handguns, and semi-auto rifles. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.
(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ
(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-student-activists-of-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-demonstrate-the-power-of-a-full-education.html
The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School returned to class Wednesday morning two weeks and moral centuries after a tragic mass shooting ended the lives of 17 classmates and teachers. Sen. Marco Rubio marked their return by scolding them for being “infected” with “arrogance” and “boasting.” The Florida legislature marked their return by enacting a $67 million program to arm school staff, including teachers, over the objections of students and parents. Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill opted to welcome them back by ignoring their wishes on gun control, which might lead a cynic to believe that nothing has changed in America after yet another horrifying cycle of child murder and legislative apathy.
But that is incorrect. Consumers and businesses are stepping in where the government has cowered. Boycotts may not influence lawmakers, but they certainly seem to be changing the game in the business world. And the students of Parkland, Florida, unbothered by the games played by legislators and lobbyists, are still planning a massive march on Washington. These teens have—by most objective measures—used social media to change the conversation around guns and gun control in America.
Now it’s time for them to change the conversation around education in America, and not just as it relates to guns in the classroom. The effectiveness of these poised, articulate, well-informed, and seemingly preternaturally mature student leaders of Stoneman Douglas has been vaguely attributed to very specific personalities and talents. Indeed, their words and actions have been so staggeringly powerful, they ended up fueling laughable claims about crisis actors, coaching, and fat checks from George Soros. But there is a more fundamental lesson to be learned in the events of this tragedy: These kids aren’t freaks of nature. Their eloquence and poise also represent the absolute vindication of the extracurricular education they receive at Marjory Stoneman Douglas.
Despite the gradual erosion of the arts and physical education in America’s public schools, the students of Stoneman Douglas have been the beneficiaries of the kind of 1950s-style public education that has all but vanished in America and that is being dismantled with great deliberation as funding for things like the arts, civics, and enrichment are zeroed out. In no small part because the school is more affluent than its counterparts across the country (fewer than 23 percent of its students received free or reduced-price lunches in 2015–16, compared to about 64 percent across Broward County Public Schools) these kids have managed to score the kind of extracurricular education we’ve been eviscerating for decades in the United States. These kids aren’t prodigiously gifted. They’ve just had the gift of the kind of education we no longer value.
Part of the reason the Stoneman Douglas students have become stars in recent weeks is in no small part due to the fact that they are in a school system that boasts, for example, of a “system-wide debate program that teaches extemporaneous speaking from an early age.” Every middle and high school in the district has a forensics and public-speaking program. Coincidentally, some of the students at Stoneman Douglas had been preparing for debates on the issue of gun control this year, which explains in part why they could speak to the issues from day one.
The student leaders of the #NeverAgain revolt were also, in large part, theater kids who had benefited from the school’s exceptional drama program. Coincidentally, some of these students had been preparing to perform Spring Awakening, a rock musical from 2006. As the New Yorker describes it in an essay about the rise of the drama kids, that musical tackles the question of “what happens when neglectful adults fail to make the world safe or comprehensible for teen-agers, and the onus that neglect puts on kids to beat their own path forward.” Weird.
The student leaders at Stoneman Douglas High School have also included, again, not by happenstance, young journalists, who’d worked at the school paper, the Eagle Eye, with the supervision of talented staff. One of the extraordinary components of the story was the revelation that David Hogg, student news director for the school’s broadcast journalism program, WMSD-TV, was interviewing his own classmates as they hid in a closet during the shooting, and that these young people had the wherewithal to record and write about the events as they unfolded. As Christy Ma, the paper’s staff editor, later explained, “We tried to have as many pictures as possible to display the raw emotion that was in the classroom. We were working really hard so that we could show the world what was going on and why we need change.”
Mary Beth Tinker actually visited the school in 2013 to talk to the students about her role in Tinker v. Des Moines, the seminal Supreme Court case around student speech and protest. As she described it to me, the school’s commitment to student speech and journalism had been long in evidence, even before these particular students were activated by this month’s horrific events. Any school committed to bringing in a student activist from the Vietnam era to talk about protest and freedom is a school more likely than not to be educating activists and passionate students.
To be sure, the story of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students is a story about the benefits of being a relatively wealthy school district at a moment in which public education is being vivisected without remorse or mercy. But unless you’re drinking the strongest form of Kool-Aid, there is simply no way to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact that students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship.
Perhaps instead of putting more money into putting more guns into our classrooms, we should think about putting more money into the programs that foster political engagement and skills. In Sen. Rubio’s parlance, Marjory Stoneman Douglas was fostering arrogance. To the rest of the world, it was building adults.
"...Students who were being painstakingly taught about drama, media, free speech, political activism, and forensics became the epicenter of the school-violence crisis and handled it creditably. The more likely explanation is that extracurricular education—one that focuses on skills beyond standardized testing and rankings—creates passionate citizens who are spring-loaded for citizenship." Would she say this about students at the school who might be part of the "Young Republicans Club"? Would they handle this "less credibly" and are they less "spring-loaded for citizenship?" It seems I received a similar education as these kids and more since I'm older. In fact, I went to NYU, one of the most liberal universities in the world. I studied media and drama and then went on to become a professional stage actor. I guess I wasn't programmed well enough..?
No, I'd say the real reason these kids are doing so well with getting their message out isn't due to education, but rather that their message is the one the media wants to get out. Their agendas align. It's pretty simple. That's the reason they're so "effective." They're good looking kids promoting leftist ideology after a tragedy. That's ratings gold. The media and the left claim they want gun control, but their real agenda is a gun ban and most will admit that when pushed. When your intent is to emotionally manipulate the public, and the government's intent is to disarm its citizens, what better tool than young survivors of a mass shooting?
Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Also, if your argument is that the mainstream media doesn't have a left-leaning bias, then I guess we'll pretty much have to end it there.