America's Gun Violence

october22

PJ_Soul said:

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mec-vista-outdoor-1.4557071

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.

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.... 

october22

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

oftenreading

Interesting article on why the student activists of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High have been so effective. It boils down to - education:

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.

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.

 

oftenreading

Part 2:

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. 

october22

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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? 

rgambs

@october22
Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?

josevolution

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

rgambs said:

@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.

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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?

october22

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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. 

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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. 

Quit whining about it. It’s not like the right doesn’t have a megaphone to blast their message. The right is losing the message war on this issue, particularly. Too bad.

Halifax2TheMax

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

october22

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

oftenreading

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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? 

Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.

You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.

october22

oftenreading said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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? 

Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.

You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.

No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.

It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.

oftenreading

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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? 

Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.

You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.

No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.

It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.

The fact that you say you “hope” that your opinion wouldn’t change if you experienced a new situation with new information suggests that your opinion is more affected by emotion than you like to think. 

HughFreakingDillon

shooting in progress at Michigan University. 

october22

oftenreading said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

october22 said:

oftenreading said:

Part 2:

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? 

Of course the media looks for people who capture public attention, and they have found that in this group of kids at this time. The point of the article, though, isn't the opinion itself, but how they present it. There have been far too many school shootings, with far too many affected kids who have not had this impact, regardless of how the media might have wanted it to be so. Why has this group of students captured the attention that they have? The media would not be able to create this public speaking presence out of whole cloth; they have found a group of poised, articulate, passionate speakers. The point of the article, which you seem to have missed, is how they got this way.

You are, of course, free to use your own education to present your own views. I suppose it's even possible that, if you had the misfortune to be in the middle of a mass shooting where many of your friends were killed, your views might change.

No, I get it. I didn't articulate myself very well.

It's certainly possible that my views might change if I was in their position. There is no way to know for sure, but I hope they wouldn't because they're based on principal rather than emotion. Tough to say though. I'd be curious to know how many views were changed from the presumably majority conservative audience in the Vegas shooting. I doubt very many.

The fact that you say you “hope” that your opinion wouldn’t change if you experienced a new situation with new information suggests that your opinion is more affected by emotion than you like to think. 

No. I say hope because I'm not a sociopath. Of course I'm emotionally affected by experiences. However, I do my best to arrive at decisions like this with logic rather than emotion. I always include new information when formulating an argument or opinion, however, there is no new information here. If someone shot at me or my friends, it would be a traumatic experience, but it wouldn't be "new information" for an argument.

I'll put it another way. I'm not pro gay marriage because I've met some gay people I like. Who cares how I personally feel about anyone when people's rights are concerned? I would be pro gay marriage if I'd never met any because there is nothing barring it in the constitution. If there was something barring it in the constitution, I would argue for an amendment based of my view of civil rights. Again, none of this has to do with my emotional connection to gays just as I would hope once there was distance from myself and my emotional reaction to being shot at, I would formulate my opinion based on my principals rather than emotion. My principals change with new information, not with new emotions.

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

shooting in progress at Michigan University. 

It won't get much press, "just" a domestic type incident gone bad. Nothing to see here...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/central-michigan-university-shooting-leaves-two-wounded-gunman-loose-n852611

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?