Home | About | Donate

Read and Watch a Stoneman Douglas High School Student's Powerful Plea for Gun Control


Read and Watch a Stoneman Douglas High School Student's Powerful Plea for Gun Control

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Thousands gathered Saturday for a rally outside the federal courthouse, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.—about 25 miles away from the mass shooting Wednesday—where speakers including survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre gave powerful speeches for gun control.


God bless you, Emma Gonzolez for scoring a shitload of points with a lot of people even if Trump may not yet be among them. That will depend on the eventual prevailing wind of public opinion. Bringing it down to pure physics, more guns equals more bullets potentially flying. More people owning guns increases the likelihood that some of those people are abnormal. For a sick few of them that gun represents a means of payback for them having been slighted in some, even small, way. Banning guns altogether is probably a step too far, but a certain measure of control is simple common sense.


Banning assault weapons is not an unreasonable thing! What on earth do average citizens need with an assault rifle?!!!

I am so proud of this young woman–Emma Gonzalez–may your speech be heard by ALL and go viral!!! A teenager–smarter than any of the old fossilized good ole boys in congress–who knew?!


Tell em Emma.

It’s always "Thoughts and Prayers " for shooting victims and their communities.

And “Big Profits” and “Large Campaign Contributions” for the Gun Industry and Politicians who support it.

This must be made criminal.


We can fixate on Afghanistan for decades and that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But we can’t stop the slaughter of Americans, including kids, at the hands of other Americans. What does that tell you about our current American culture? Our priorities? Trump priorities?

Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn from them.


“And a child shall lead them.” Right on!


The vile politicians are certainly morally complicit in this horrifying American carnage. But are they not in fact accessories to murder?


Awesome kids. I’d like to see how what effect a sustained national student strike will have on Congress.


Adding “a little perspective” should mean comparing apples-to-apples.

Actually, the N.R.A. spent nearly $60 on the 2016 election and it was singularly focused on one issue. Their political spending goes to PAC election issue spending (about $54 million of that $60 million) and not candidate spending. The NRA also spent $84 million in lobbying in 2016 and another $54 million for their gun rights publications. So that totals about $200 million of their total $419 million budget (note this is all verifiable from the NRA organization audit which is posted online).
In contrast, total teachers union spending on political activity was actually around $40 million (I have no idea where you got the $200 million figure) and very little of that was spent on gun-control/gun-rights issues.


To verify my figures, you can find the 2016 audit of NRA finances at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4210859-8-16-2017-AuditFYEnding2016.html#document/p5/a387862

U.S. laws on political spending ae extremely lenient so I don’t have any reason to presume that most all political spending is now legal (by the NRA by teachers unions or by me and you).

First off, union officers are elected by their membership and can be voted out if the membership doesn’t agree with their representation. That’s kind of how representative democracy works in the U.S. Personally, I would love for the Federal Government to spend a lot less of its resources on military spending and more on health care and education. My recourse is to try and work to change those policies and the elected officials who promote them. It is no different with union representation.
But more importantly, I don’t see the logic in your focus on unions in this regard. After all, corporate interests outspent labor unions by a 15-to-1 margin in 2016 (see for example, https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php). I own some stock though my retirement savings – I do not get to decide if those corporations should stop spending my money on politics. Also, many unions will poll their membership before taking political positions. Do corporations do likewise?

Even more importantly, over 20% of the stock in U.S. corporations is owned by foreign investors. So yes - there is a good deal of foreign influence in U.S. elections and it is coming from corporate spending thanks to Citizens United.


oops that was supposed to read

U.S. laws on political spending are extremely lenient so I’d have to presume that most all political spending is now legal (by the NRA by teachers unions or by me and you).


You are greatly mistaken if you believe that corporations and unions advocate for the same political positions in their lobbying and electoral efforts.

There is quite a difference between individual small investors and foreign investors who own a large share of a company. In the latter situation they have their own representatives on the board of directors. Further, the corporations who have the most spending in the political sphere are global in nature as are their interests. The unions you are talking about represent U.S. workers.


I was actually making the opposite argument so it’s good to know you realize they aren’t.


Emma and Ahed Tamimi, the Palestinian young woman who slapped the Israeli soldier because they have killed and maimed her friends and family, are the two most righteous voices of the year. Take that you slimy professional a**-kissing pols.


So let me get this straight. YOU believe that this Entity called God, some being that sits above all others and created all we see decided that the peoples that live in the United States of America were warranted a RIGHT to have guns so that they could kill one another so as to secure their “liberty” ?

This “God given right” in a nation where some 2.5 million are in prison, where some 70 million have criminal records, where there mass surveillance of its citizens , where peoples rights to vote have been removed where one can be arrested for the crime of feeding the homeless and where the Police kill over 1000 citizens a year?

Are others in the NRA of the same mindset or is this just you?


Hello MMinLamesa -

You wrote “…who slammed President Donald Trump,-Why President Trump? Because he supports the Constitutional guarantee of our God given right to secure our liberty??”

Well, Thank You, Sir!

As a Canadian who has lived and worked in The Netherlands, the UK and Australia as well as all over Western Europe, I have long wondered why, in your country, alone amongst current developed nations, schoolkids are regularly murdered in numbers by her own citizens.

Now I know. The answer, of course, is “to support you Constitutional guarantee of your God given right to secure your liberty.”

I get it. You support the random killing of a few dozen American school children now and then to keep America and Americans secure and free.

The logic of your thinking, based on that archaic and very confusing single sentence (your beloved 2A) dating back 227 years to 1791, is breathtaking in its naivite and simplicity. Those 27 words are now utterly out of date, and to kill innocent children to secure one’s freedom and libery is nothing but insanity.


Sorry, Suspira. A few minutes after you posted yours, I posted a similar comment. I did not mean to steal your thunder.


Additionally, the fact it took place on Valentine’s Day, by a hate-filled youth of the fascist sort, also needs to be placed squarely at the center of Trump’s unleashing of these sentiments.


“I don’t need a psychologist and I don’t need to be a psychologist to know that repealing that regulation was a really dumb idea”

The ACLU also was against that law. Usually things are not a black and while as some people see them.

Plus, there’s few hundred million guns in private hands in the US. Depending on which stats you read about 40% of households have a gun. The only common thing for these shooters is that they are mentally disturbed. we used to have asylums where these people were warehoused so they don’t pose a threat to others or themselves. How about we got some funding and reopen those facilities?

BTW, there is federal law that prohibits nuts who have been involuntarily committed to an asylum to own guns. I guess his doctors figured that this guy wasn’t disturbed enough to be committed.


Oh it quite, alright. No thunder was stolen, it was only made louder.