Home | About | Donate

Fed Up With "Tragedy After Tragedy," Student-Led Rally Denounces NRA's "Dangerous Agenda" With Protests Outside Convention


#1

Fed Up With "Tragedy After Tragedy," Student-Led Rally Denounces NRA's "Dangerous Agenda" With Protests Outside Convention

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

#2

Kudos to the kids. But why do “progressive” media hacks and pols continue to nibble around the edges with “common sense gun reform”?

The only things that will work are to:

  1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons
  2. Ban all private guns sales
  3. Arm-down the militarized police,
  4. Federally license gun owners, sellers and manufacturers and require all to buy insurance against theft, misuse of weapons, etc.
  5. Fine all owners, sellers and producers when their weapons are used in crimes
  6. Ban the sales and export of guns and military equipment
  7. Buy back, then confiscate prohibited guns
  8. Limit the numbers of guns per household

Only if some (or until all) of these kinds of “nonsense” reforms are implemented will the slaughter stop. Clearly, real reforms are too “radical” for the vast majority of U.S. citizens and residents, the media and the political classes.

And as for you gun-toting armed leftist “revolutionaries” who claim you’ll shoot your way to anti-capitalist freedom, how’s that working out for ya? I don’t see too many places in the U.S. that have been “liberated” by all you Che Guevara wannabes.


#3

Damn. That’s a good list Tom.


#4

I too hold great respect for the activist “kids” and their morality - Kudos indeed!. The “common-sense” restrictions/reforms are designed to gain some consensus to pass some restrictive laws without outright bans I suppose - how to gain support without alienating good people who own “guns” but do not kill? We do live in a violent world. There are evil depraved people out there. In a perfect world no one would want, or even think of hurting another, and “guns” wouldn’t be an issue, but we don’t.

I have serious problems with blanket government “cures” to ending the hideous killings that cause so much pain and suffering. I also have great concern with government bans, restrictions, licensing/insurance and others - haven’t been able to trust them yet…no gestapo tactics.

I am an anachronism I guess, a contradiction - What about collector, antique and vintage or farm guns? There is a difference between country and city living. Many people appreciate the mechanical and historical aspects, or as investments of old “guns” & design, but do not kill people or hunt/kill animals or even shoot their old guns. They acquired guns before the culture of insane violence and mass killings with modern weapons. One problem is how to limit or end commercial manufacture/sales of new guns especially “militarized”, stop “disturbed” people accessing guns, and especially ending the culture of violence and aggression rampant in society - violence begins in the damn white house and wars of choice on down to “religious” hatreds and racism and mental illness or legal drugs that induce violent behaviors, pushed on kids by big-pharma.
Ending the killings of innocent people, kids by other kids, is critical but complex, there are no simple/easy answers. People of conscience also own “guns” but do not kill or even think of violence. The issue is part contempt for the lives of others and what drives society and people to violence against others - what makes a person want to kill? The answers go beyond just the term “guns”.
I think of the film “Shane” and the characters words in a scene -

Marian Starrett: Guns aren’t going to be my boy’s life!
Joey (young son): Why do you always have to spoil everything?
Shane: A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.
Marian Starrett: We’d all be much better off if there wasn’t a single gun left in this valley - including yours.

Peace brother Tom


#5

As Trump massaged the egos of NRA convention attendees this week, including advocating gun toting guards and teachers in schools, a Parkland student pointed out that the armed guard at Parkland was worthless during the massacre.

I don’t expect the NRA crowd to let facts get in the way of a reality TV star’s story.


#6

Tom: excellent list but probably, like you say “too radical” and will never be implemented which is a damn shame!


#7

I share some of your ambivalence, but now that murder has been pretty much normalized, extreme measures are needed. Certainly I realize that our governments are neither democratic nor concerned for human rights, but I fear them less than gun owners who are slaughtering about 15,000 people per year (mostly themselves), maiming another 75,000 human beings or so, and causing hundreds of billions of dollars in health care and environmental costs. Then add police murderers/woundings etc. to that and the general mass murder the U.S. conducts around the globe.

Guns have to go to ameliorate the gun culture. Hell, hundreds of little kids kill and wound each other each year in the U.S. just playing with real guns.

Truly respect your thoughtful comment to my post, but I stand on what I put up. Thank You


#8

Freaking Brilliant, totally common sense!
This post should be memorized and repeated in every conversation about firearms!
Thanks Tom, great post!


#9

“Kudos to the kids. But why do ‘progressive’ media hacks and pols continue to nibble around the edges with ‘common sense gun reform’?”

There is no consensus regarding what “common sense” gun violence control covers. Nor need there be: the important thing is the slogan, which advances the idea that laws to control gun violence are needed; and that - in contrast to ideological, extremist, and minority NRA-supporter views - the need for gun control is obvious…a matter of “common sense.”

Radical gun violence control such as you advocate - and which I mainly support - can be legitimately argued for as “common sense” gun control. This view can be democratically advanced within the range of individuals and organizations now mobilizing for gun control.

But tee-ing off with the defeatist argument that ‘unless-my-plan is followed-nothing-can-be-achieved’ won’t get you far with most groups. At any rate, your approach alienates me - doesn’t seem grounded in work with existing organizations that don’t think exactly like you.

Yours is a recipe for sectarianism, in my view.


#10

It’s really not an insurmountable problem.
The insurance requirement for all guns would seemingly address your concerns.

Then the insurers could provide discounts for antiques, if the owner welds the barrel closed for example, or otherwise renders it inert. The insurers could also discount for firearm safety classes. At the same time they would likely charge higher rates for high capacity magazines as well as semi auto actions. …That is until these get naturally relegated to specialty ranges where those seeking such an experience would go to rent the weapon under highly controlled circumstances from the owner/operator who would assume all responsibility.


#11

I respectfully disagree. “Common Sense” is one of those “big tent” terms that can mean so many things it says nothing. It hurts organizing for that reason IMO. Unless we have terms that we can mutually understand the meaning of (which requires concrete details) we cannot fight over or agree on real things. Different organizing philosophy I guess.


#12

Great to see the kids, rising up.
The future is in their hands.
A friend expressed a positive vision.
The kids are rejecting old tradition that didn’t work and doing it their way.
I have great respect for my children and grandchildren’s problem solving skills.
ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG🌿


#13

So, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A fair reading of this would be, “If you’re in the Militia (which in today’s parlance is the National Guard), you can keep and bear arms, but only in furtherance of the goal of maintaining a well regulated Militia.”

Therefore, all other guns should be turned to plowshares. None of this “common sense gun reform” bullshit.
I’d modify TomJohnson1’ list which reads:

to:

Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons_, except when you’re on active duty in the National Guard._
Ban all guns sales
Arm-down the militarized police,
Federally license gun owners, sellers and manufacturers and require all to buy insurance against theft, misuse of weapons, etc., including liability insurance for the damage done by those weapons
Fine all owners, sellers and producers when their weapons are used in crimes
Ban the sales and export of guns and military equipment
…Confiscate all guns
Prohibit all guns except those used in the course of serving in the National Guard.

Then, I’d repeal the Second Amendment all together and prohibit all guns – they only visit grief on humanity.

and replace with an amendment that says something like:

“The right of the people to be free from the fear and peril from firearms shall not be abridged.”


#14

You would have liability insurance for non-usable guns?
Brilliant.


#15

Why all the hysteria here?
Gun deaths have been going down even as gun ownership has gone up.
School shootings have gone down over the years.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
More kids have been killed and injured by falling televisions than school shootings.

Seriously, why are you all so freaked out all the time by guns?
Very, very few school kids will ever know anyone who has been shot under any circumstances.
Nearly every school kid will know someone who has been killed or harmed just by drugs and alcohol.

A sensible society would work to eliminate threats based on the actual harm not politicized hysteria.
Guns are low on that list.


#16

Nope, not even close.

Even ignoring the vast number of references to purpose of the amendment from the Founders, an understanding of English sentence structure shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The first and second clauses are independent.

The first clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " is independent of the second “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first clause is one reason that describes the value of the second clause, but not the only reason.

So, you are either truly ignorant and don’t understand the issue or you know that and just don’t care.
“Oh noze, the gunz!!!”


#17

Wait a second, don’t you think it depends on how a weapon is inerted?

For example, if I have an interchangeable trigger mechanism that I welded solid on my International Harvester made M1 Garand, you might call that weapon unusable, but in under 5 minutes I could restore it to its full historical deadliness by changing the trigger housing. So for that one, I wouldn’t expect to get a $0 pass on insurance unless I welded the barrel, and perhaps more in some firearms.

Surely that is understandable.


#18

Sorry, but you’re inventing language that isn’t there and then interpreting your imaginary language to support your position.

In addition, your interpretation makes the initial clause essentially meaningless – just hanging out there with no context or purpose. Were your view correct, the initial clause would simply not be there.


#19

This reply got linked to the wrong post somehow

Wrong.
The first clause regarding a citizens militia is one important reason why the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but is by no means exclusive.


#21

The suprene court says the language is confusing, but you, shirley, must be correct oh wise one.

Oh, and if you can’t manage to post your reply to the correct person, why would or should anyone feel comfortable with you owning a firearm