Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-18-2018, 12:25 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
You have a list of people who have glommed on for their own reasons. People who want publicity or are willing to ride coattails.
There's a difference between 'glomming on' (simply 'attaching' yourself to something) or 'riding coattails' ('hanging on while someone moves forward') and actively funding, organizing, training, and promoting someone (or something), as you 'morph' their 'message' into your's, to achieve those ends you've been attempting to attain for some time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
This is one side being galvanized, another side making sure no good tragedy goes to waste, our side thinking we've discovered some grand conspiracy, and then another part of our side seeing this exact same thing happen over and over and over.
Therein lies part of the problem with your criticism of this thread. It's never been about "discovering some grand conspiracy" or being unaware of this exact, same thing happening repetitively. Quite the opposite.

It's providing "evidence" (note the quotation marks) people can use to illustrate what we already know/suspect rather than making vague allusions to "the Left." Just like my last post about Hogg and his call for a boycott of Vanguard and BlackRock. Such a call is consistent with what one of the active players (soliciting donations from "Silicon Valley Donors") behind the march (Ron Conway) has been playing an active part in since Sandy Hook. It's also consistent with what "teachers" or "teachers' unions" have been attempting to do; with such organizations also being actively involved with these "kids."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
A real strategy from an adult would be well thought out (one would hope anyway).
It is well thought out. Hogg and the Parkland Kids are simply the 'beard' or 'face' of the moment. Or, if you prefer, a 'new' prong in the ongoing, multi-pronged assault on our rights. Once they're utility is played out, they'll find their support (funding, organizing, training, et al.) drying up quickly, with phone calls and e-mails not being returned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
He's backed by big media and big money for now, because of his story, but that may fade if he breaks his own message down to "burn it all down" type thinking.
That's why it's well thought out. He and the other Parkland Kids are being used as the "burn it all down" or "unreasonable" (Why should we listen to "kids" who appear incapable of, in your words, exactly grasping the way of things completely quite yet?) beard/face to make others demanding more 'incremental' solutions appear 'reasonable.' Who are the others? That's part of what this thread is highlighting.

Just like the last post noted such pressure didn't originate with Hogg and that the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility has been actively involved in those efforts. From their own website...

Quote:
...With gun violence progress stalled at the federal level, ICCR members bought shares in gun makers Sturm Ruger and American Outdoor Brands and retailer Dick's Sporting Goods in order to file shareholder resolutions during the 2018 proxy season. While many religious organization have investment guidelines that screen out weapons manufacturers, our members purchased stock in these companies in order to file and open dialogues with management around the role companies can play in helping to curb gun violence...

ICCR member Mercy Investment Services used the resolution it filed in late 2017, at Dick's Sporting Goods to open a discussion with the company about the clear business and moral case for immediate corporate action. The resolution was withdrawn following a productive dialogue with company management. Subsequently, Dick's agreed to stop selling assault-style weapons at its Field & Stream stores, and raised the minimum age of gun purchasers to 21.

On March 27, we released an Investor Statement on Gun Violence, identifying 13 actions companies can adopt to reduce the risk of gun violence, many of them taken/adapted from the Sandy Hook Principles...
The Investor Statement on Gun Violence

The resolution it filed with Dick's Sporting Goods

Take note of the following in the resolution...

Quote:
As we wait for stricter gun laws, there is no reason why companies that sell guns cannot impose strict rules of their own. Investors suggest implementing:
  • Commit to lobby, stock and advise on technology-enhanced safety measures for guns and ammunition.
  • Conduct background checks on all gun and ammunition sales or transfers and support establishment of a federal universal background check system for sale or transfer of guns or ammunition by business clients, including gun show operators or gun dealers;
  • Reevaluate policies regarding sale, design or conversion of military style assault weapons for civilian use, including information to assist conversions;
  • Support federal gun trafficking regulation ensuring stronger punishment for individuals selling firearms illegal under federal law;
  • Promote restrictions on firearms and ammunition sales, transfers and possession to keep guns out of hands of children, persons with mental illness or mental health challenges, criminals, domestic or international terrorists and others prohibited from legally possessing them; and
  • Promote gun safety education at point of sale and in communities in which the Company conducts business operations.
What was the statement released by Dick's on 28 February?

Now, what news article was released Tuesday?

Dick’s Sporting Goods Destroying Unsold Assault-Style Rifles Pulled from Shelves

Quote:
Dick’s Sporting Goods is destroying the unsold assault-style rifles it pulled from store shelves after the Valentine’s Day mass shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Rather than return the unsold inventory to manufacturers, Dick’s Sporting Goods outdoor subsidiary Field & Stream will destroy the weapons at distribution centers before delivering them to a salvage company for recycling...
Who were the contributors and signatories to that Investor Statement on Gun Violence?

Again, it's not about "our side thinking we've discovered some grand conspiracy." It's about highlighting the network that has been behind funding, organizing, training, etc. the Parkland Kids; a network that the teachers and parents of those kids have admitted and been shown to have direct connections to. This is something highlighted for you before, specifically in relation to Deena Katz. From my previous post...

Quote:
...Deena Katz, a producer of Dancing With the Stars and a co-executive director of the Women’s March Los Angeles Foundation. Through a personal connection to a family in Parkland, Fla., the site of the deadly school shooting, Katz stepped in early to work with the student activists at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School... Katz applied as an individual for the permits to march in Washington. She is the president of the March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit established to fund the march and future lobbying on gun control.
Such connections allow them access to other connections within that network, with the synergistic impact showing in the subsequent posts; i.e., those individuals and agencies which have descended upon these kids in terms of the funding, organizing, training, etc.

It's not and never has been about 'attacking the kids;' at least not so much beyond pointing out that they are NOT well-spoken, articulate, etc., even for "kids." That's not an attack on the kids. It's an attack on how the kids are being presented. Which is exactly what this thread is about - attacking the premise that this is "the kids' message" and "the kids doing the organizing" and "the kids' own efforts." Instead, what is being highlighted is that it's part of the ongoing strategy and attacks being perpetrated by known actors who have, publicly, declared their goal to be the elimination of our right to keep and bear arms; where names of those actors are being brought to light.

Worse. It's showing the 'network' that has been built and how that 'network' is willing to use any means, individual, or group of individuals, fair or foul, to attain their goal. If the Parkland Kids "break down" or "burn out," the network remains and will simply find a new prong for their ongoing attack, bringing more pressure to bear on the public's and politicians' perceptions that "something needs to be done."

You know, kinda like Hogg's attack on the investment management companies to bring more pressure to bear. They may not get the whole cake at once, but the increased pressure might just get them another slice of it.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-18-2018 at 12:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-18-2018, 3:36 AM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Okay. I've been known to engage in similar exchanges myself at times.
Indeed.

Your rebuttals clearly carry the superior argument in regards to Sarabellum.

Rootuser will make you work for it, but he is willing to concede when
a good point is made, and is willing to listen to what others have to say
and respond to those points, qualities that are lacking in some individuals
posting in this thread.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-18-2018, 12:19 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
There's a difference between 'glomming on' (simply 'attaching' yourself to something) or 'riding coattails' ('hanging on while someone moves forward') and actively funding, organizing, training, and promoting someone (or something), as you 'morph' their 'message' into your's, to achieve those ends you've been attempting to attain for some time.
There is an assumption here that their message has been morphed. I am not convinced that is the case. They may have evolved their own message, but a puppet master that is actually pulling the strings and putting words in their mouth is not something I see.

Yep, people have funded, trained etc, none of which equates to them having changed the message that some of those kids want to put forward. At first they may not have been able to express themselves very well, but that is evolving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Therein lies part of the problem with your criticism of this thread. It's never been about "discovering some grand conspiracy" or being unaware of this exact, same thing happening repetitively. Quite the opposite.

It's providing "evidence" (note the quotation marks) people can use to illustrate what we already know/suspect rather than making vague allusions to "the Left."
What you have suggested is the message is one that no longer belongs to these kids and they have been "morphed" in some way. What morphed them was having their friends shot and killed. They are angry. They are afraid. They have social media and other tools at their disposal. Whatever "evidence" of people supporting their cause is not surprising, a revelation, or in particular meaningful to discrediting the message itself. Just because you find yourself agreeing with an individual right to bear arms, for example, doesn't make you a Republican.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Just like my last post about Hogg and his call for a boycott of Vanguard and BlackRock. Such a call is consistent with what one of the active players (soliciting donations from "Silicon Valley Donors") behind the march (Ron Conway) has been playing an active part in since Sandy Hook. It's also consistent with what "teachers" or "teachers' unions" have been attempting to do; with such organizations also being actively involved with these "kids."
Going after the money is an age old tactic. Just because Ron Conway does the same thing by itself means nothing. Tell me you haven't thought about the same thing? We all have. I guess that means we're all morphed by Ron Conway? No, it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It is well thought out. Hogg and the Parkland Kids are simply the 'beard' or 'face' of the moment. Or, if you prefer, a 'new' prong in the ongoing, multi-pronged assault on our rights. Once they're utility is played out, they'll find their support (funding, organizing, training, et al.) drying up quickly, with phone calls and e-mails not being returned.
I agree they are a new prong. No doubt. It is a prong by happenstance and everyone on the left ready to jump on the "I told you so" bandwagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's why it's well thought out. He and the other Parkland Kids are being used as the "burn it all down" or "unreasonable" (Why should we listen to "kids" who appear incapable of, in your words, exactly grasping the way of things completely quite yet?) beard/face to make others demanding more 'incremental' solutions appear 'reasonable.' Who are the others? That's part of what this thread is highlighting.
If you mean "used" as in people hold them up as an example, I agree. If you mean "used" as is the kids aren't thinking for themselves, I believe you're wrong. There have been obvious cracks in their arguments that a Ron Conway type wouldn't allow to slip through if they were in control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

Again, it's not about "our side thinking we've discovered some grand conspiracy." It's about highlighting the network that has been behind funding, organizing, training, etc. the Parkland Kids; a network that the teachers and parents of those kids have admitted and been shown to have direct connections to.
Is it possible that the kids are using the network without direction in terms of what to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Such connections allow them access to other connections within that network, with the synergistic impact showing in the subsequent posts; i.e., those individuals and agencies which have descended upon these kids in terms of the funding, organizing, training, etc.

It's not and never has been about 'attacking the kids;' at least not so much beyond pointing out that they are NOT well-spoken, articulate, etc., even for "kids." That's not an attack on the kids. It's an attack on how the kids are being presented. Which is exactly what this thread is about - attacking the premise that this is "the kids' message" and "the kids doing the organizing" and "the kids' own efforts." Instead, what is being highlighted is that it's part of the ongoing strategy and attacks being perpetrated by known actors who have, publicly, declared their goal to be the elimination of our right to keep and bear arms; where names of those actors are being brought to light.
I see no evidence of this not being their message. That is my entire point. I agree that there are people supporting, training etc. But wanting more gun control seems to be exactly their message and has been since day one.

If you can show me that somehow these kids don't want to do what they are doing, or that they have changed their tune, or there is more here than alignment of message by happenstance, then I'm all ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Worse. It's showing the 'network' that has been built and how that 'network' is willing to use any means, individual, or group of individuals, fair or foul, to attain their goal. If the Parkland Kids "break down" or "burn out," the network remains and will simply find a new prong for their ongoing attack, bringing more pressure to bear on the public's and politicians' perceptions that "something needs to be done."
Well I can't disagree here for sure. The network is basically a business on to itself, but this is true of any major political cause. We have it in the NRA in almost exactly the same measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You know, kinda like Hogg's attack on the investment management companies to bring more pressure to bear. They may not get the whole cake at once, but the increased pressure might just get them another slice of it.
Follow the money, age old strategy.

Look, it is not lost on me you are trying to document the apparatus assisting and supporting these kids. The issue is, people here in particular, are susceptible to reading that as a 'conspiracy'. That is why I come back to it not being so. I am not suggesting you, personally, are claiming it is a conspiracy but there are people who pretend to be on our side (Infowars for example) that have called these people crisis actors etc. They have lied on us time and time again and make anyone in the middle turn away from us because we end up looking like jackwagons. This is WHY we are losing in some areas because we have alienated the middle because of the fake right.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-18-2018, 2:05 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
IVC is just providing a counter point for the many people who are still
following this thread, that is his intended target, he knows full well
Sarabellum will just continue his recalcitrant, inflexible, behavior.
Exactly.

Public forum is about those who are interested in the subject and reading the discussion, not about those who hold specific points of view and post.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-18-2018, 2:17 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I see no evidence of this not being their message. That is my entire point. I agree that there are people supporting, training etc. But wanting more gun control seems to be exactly their message and has been since day one.
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."

What is the logical explanation for "their message" to contain calls for limits on magazine capacity when the shooter used limited capacity magazines? What is the logical explanation for "their message" in CA to contain calls for ban on "assault weapons" when they are already banned in CA?

To call this "a coincidence" is akin to having a 17 year old sponsored by tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), flown around the country by the tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), promoted by the tobacco industry TV (confirmed free air time) pushing message that "tobacco products are not harmful to one's lungs."

Would you call such a person "expressing his opinion," or would you call him a "paid shill?"

Same concept.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-18-2018, 4:25 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."

What is the logical explanation for "their message" to contain calls for limits on magazine capacity when the shooter used limited capacity magazines? What is the logical explanation for "their message" in CA to contain calls for ban on "assault weapons" when they are already banned in CA?

To call this "a coincidence" is akin to having a 17 year old sponsored by tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), flown around the country by the tobacco industry (confirmed monetary support), promoted by the tobacco industry TV (confirmed free air time) pushing message that "tobacco products are not harmful to one's lungs."

Would you call such a person "expressing his opinion," or would you call him a "paid shill?"

Same concept.
First, we have to be really honest and admit, Hogg in particular was calling for gun control from the get go, and so were some of the others. They threatened to go after the NRA and politicians and gun laws pretty much immediately (literally with a couple days after the shooting) on Face the Nation for just one example. So they started off immediately blaming all gun owners, law abiding or not. The NRA was immediately the boogeyman (again!). They were right up their own congress people's noses immediately. They didn't start with only "we don't want school shootings" that just isn't the case. Instead they immediately went at "let's use gun control to stop school shootings". They seem to still be there. The idea that any of these kids would have any exposure to what gun laws were and were not seems a stretch.

These kids have never been exposed to this subject before, at least not at an intimate level. To think it took them time to research and learn exactly what they thought might work seems reasonable. Obviously they couldn't have been too well coached if they want assault weapon bans in CA when they were already in place.

If I introduce you to a new, complex concept and your ideas don't evolve in a few weeks or months I would be extremely surprised. I assume you aren't God and thus infallible and perfect, and thus your ideas will change. As an engineer myself, I start off with a premise and then an approach and sometimes my approach has to change as I learn more and often times the premise changes. Just reality.

I don't want to defend these kids taking our rights. Contrary to Epictetus (sp?), sometimes circumstances do make the man. Hogg had the benefit of being a white kid with money from a good school. Makes him more "newsworthy" apparently. I hate to think how quickly this would have been ignored if it happened at an inner-city school.

I commonly think of a shill as a "decoy". And that in fact is the first definition by Webster, however it could mean a pitchman or promoter as well. If you mean "promoter of gun control", then sure, he is, but it seems to me you actually mean more than that and you mean it as a pejorative, which again, goes straight to the conspiracy theorists.

It's hard to admit that victims of a shooting incident might not think like we do. I've been shot at and can tell you, my immediate thought is "where's my gun". Some people however come at it the opposite and think "why does that person have a gun". I think these kids were brought up to think the later.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-18-2018, 5:17 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
These kids have never been exposed to this subject before, at least not at an intimate level. To think it took them time to research and learn exactly what they thought might work seems reasonable.
...
If I introduce you to a new, complex concept and your ideas don't evolve in a few weeks or months I would be extremely surprised.
We completely agree.

The "research" part lead to (1) adopting the anti-gun message, magazine capacity limits and all, (2) financial support from the anti-gun groups after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (3) free air time from the far left TV stations after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (4) support from the well known actors and Hollywood types after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message.

The "evolution" matched perfectly with the source of money, air time, logistic support and publicity. The "evolution" also accepted the well-tuned and control-group-tested "statistics" and "talking points" that the anti-gun groups are peddling as their primary ware.

The key here is that true research would require analytical skills well beyond the capabilities of the few main punks in the group. What they are trying to pass for "research" is akin to a bunch of kids finding Info Wars and claiming they did their research into 9/11 being a government conspiracy.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-18-2018, 6:09 PM
roundabout roundabout is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 52
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are the students being grant funded by social entrepreneurship entities such as Ashoka?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-18-2018, 6:31 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
We completely agree.

The "research" part lead to (1) adopting the anti-gun message, magazine capacity limits and all, (2) financial support from the anti-gun groups after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (3) free air time from the far left TV stations after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (4) support from the well known actors and Hollywood types after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message.

The "evolution" matched perfectly with the source of money, air time, logistic support and publicity. The "evolution" also accepted the well-tuned and control-group-tested "statistics" and "talking points" that the anti-gun groups are peddling as their primary ware.

The key here is that true research would require analytical skills well beyond the capabilities of the few main punks in the group. What they are trying to pass for "research" is akin to a bunch of kids finding Info Wars and claiming they did their research into 9/11 being a government conspiracy.
I agree with you for the most part. I am sure when they did their research they were making sure the facts fit their narrative of not wanting guns. This is pretty typical as a lot of people don't take a scientific approach to things. Heck, some people think "science" is bad while they post on the internet lol.

All that said, they started off with screaming for gun control. Immediately, before they had a chance to even recover from the shock really. They didn't research and then adopt the anti-gun message. They adopted the anti-gun mentality and then evolved their message to fit that mentality (science on the effectiveness of gun control be damned!). The research part came AFTER they were clamoring for gun control, calling out their elected officials, and accusing the NRA of being the problem.

They weren't convinced by the left that they wanted massive gun control. They wanted it from the get go and they were vocal about it. The left keyed in on that, and, made these kids the cause celebre. The order is important because it shows the kids want this gun control. They want everyone disarmed. They believe that would keep them safe. They do not understand freedom. They do not understand what it takes to create safety. This is exactly what the left wants. So they get air time etc as a result.

I am sure they have evolved their thoughts by the people they are surrounded by, as we all are to one extent or another. Their upbringing feeds right into this kind of behavior I think.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-18-2018, 7:06 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,304
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

http://www.cbs8.com/story/37990422/y...out-gun-rights

This LGS owner got it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:53 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 1 of 3...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
There is an assumption here that their message has been morphed. I am not convinced that is the case.
Actually, you do. You just use the word "evolved." Use of that term and the arguments you make point to your 'assumption;' i.e., that a 'natural' line of thinking and research has led the kids through the changes in message...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They may have evolved their own message, but a puppet master that is actually pulling the strings and putting words in their mouth is not something I see.
The reason you don't see it is because of your deductive assumption that this is simply 'natural.' By the rules of logic, such a deductive assumption precludes the possibility of you seeing it any other way and requires you to deduce...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Yep, people have funded, trained etc, none of which equates to them having changed the message that some of those kids want to put forward. At first they may not have been able to express themselves very well, but that is evolving.
Here's just one of the problems with that deduction. There have been, literally, millions of dollars in funding provided; much of that by large donors connected to the anti-gun organizations highlighted in this thread. Being honest, do you truly think such donors are going to simply turn over that kind of money, then allow 14 - 17 year old kids to 'naturally evolve' their thinking and the subsequent message? Or, is it more likely that such donors are going to take steps to insure and ensure that the 'thinking' and 'messaging' is consistent with the intentions of the donors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
What you have suggested is the message is one that no longer belongs to these kids and they have been "morphed" in some way. What morphed them was having their friends shot and killed. They are angry. They are afraid. They have social media and other tools at their disposal.
Here's an article from The New Yorker posted 19 February. Now, remember, the Parkland shooting happened on 14 February. This is the lead paragraph...

Quote:
By Sunday, only four days after the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, the activist movement that emerged in its aftermath had a name (Never Again), a policy goal (stricter background checks for gun buyers), and a plan for a nationwide protest (a March for Our Lives, scheduled for March 24th). It also had a panel of luminary teens who were reminding America that the shooting was not a freak accident or a natural disaster but the result of actual human decisions.
So, in less than 4 days, these severely traumatized children, ostensibly with the resources available to 14 - 17 year old's, had a plan to organize a nationwide march in less than one month and had a declared policy - stricter background checks.

Even if we ignore the 'severely traumatized' and accept the idea that social media would allow them to 'organize' something akin to a 'flash mob' march, the agenda was stricter background checks and determining how to go about it. Why? According to one of the students involved...

Quote:
The group stayed up all night creating social-media accounts and trying to figure out what needed to be said, “because the important thing here wasn’t talking about gore,” Kasky said on Sunday. “It was talking about change and it was talking about remembrance.” It was then that they decided to petition for more thorough background checks. As Alfonso Calderon, a co-founder of Never Again, who was there that night, told me, “Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at my school, was reported to the police thirty-nine times.” He added, “We have to vote people out who have been paid for by the N.R.A. They’re allowing this to happen. They’re making it easier for people like Nick Cruz to acquire an AR-15.”
cont'd...

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-18-2018 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:59 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 2 of 3...

So, they wanted stricter background checks in the interest of school safety and vaguely thought that the N.R.A. was in the way. I'll buy that as the thinking of 14 - 17 year old's who've been in a school system noted as "liberal leaning" and with parents that have connections to some of the more 'extreme' Left organizations. This is especially true given the visibility of the discussion regarding background checks legislation a couple of months ago.

But, as IVC states...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings." ...

The "research" part lead to (1) adopting the anti-gun message, magazine capacity limits and all, (2) financial support from the anti-gun groups after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (3) free air time from the far left TV stations after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message, (4) support from the well known actors and Hollywood types after their "research" adopted the anti-gun message.

The "evolution" matched perfectly with the source of money, air time, logistic support and publicity. The "evolution" also accepted the well-tuned and control-group-tested "statistics" and "talking points" that the anti-gun groups are peddling as their primary ware.

The key here is that true research would require analytical skills well beyond the capabilities of the few main punks in the group. What they are trying to pass for "research" is akin to a bunch of kids finding Info Wars and claiming they did their research into 9/11 being a government conspiracy.
Another of your assumptions is that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...they started off with screaming for gun control.
As I just stated, that was not their original 'policy.' Their original 'policy' was simply parroting what the news had been declaring at that moment; i.e., that stricter background checks would have prevented the shooter from having the gun he used at their school. As we've discussed on this board, ad nauseum, the system broke down and it wasn't so much the 'background checks system,' but the system which forms and provides the database for those background checks that 'failed.'

Again, such 'parroting' is consistent with 14 - 17 year old's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Whatever "evidence" of people supporting their cause is not surprising, a revelation...
As I have, repeatedly, observed, this isn't about what you or I or pro-gun people already "know or suspect." You keep declaring this and, yet, it is irrelevant to why this thread exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...or in particular meaningful to discrediting the message itself.
That very much depends on who the 'target' is for such information. It is decidedly more useful to those who wish to argue the 'pro-gun' side than leaving them to speak of a "vast, Left-Wing conspiracy" in the vein of Hillary Clinton's "vast, Right-Wing conspiracy," where accusations are made without names or some form of 'substance' demonstrating the connections. Showing the 'network' behind these kids is likely to have 'meaning' to those not already aware that 'a network' already exists or that such a network is so interrelated and that the kids' original message now appears to mirror that of the network. In other words, "the persuadables," who are the very individuals being targeted by the kids' and the network behind them with the narrative that 'the message' is purely and organically that of the kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Going after the money is an age old tactic. Just because Ron Conway does the same thing by itself means nothing.
Except that Ron Conway and several of the other groups who've been shown to be behind these kids in terms of funding, organizing, training, etc. are actively engaged in targeting investment groups AND actively engaged with these kids. In other words, it's not "by itself," but part of the 'pattern' IVC expressed. While you may write it off as 'happenstance,' what this thread is showing or attempting to show is that the old adage - "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" (Ian Fleming, Goldfinger) - is likely applicable.

Isolate each of the things and 'interpret' them individually, you might be able to make a case for 'happenstance' and 'naturally evolved.' That is, essentially, your argument.

What we are demonstrating is that these are not 'isolated' and that correlations in funding, training, etc. between these groups and the changing messages emerging from the kids appear to be present based on the timing and the open admissions/statements of the kids themselves.

In other words, while we may have all thought about "going after the money," the majority of us have not the funding, training, ability to organize at the level or connections necessary to do so.

Which brings to mind the question: "How do 14 - 17 year old's have those things and so quickly?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I agree they are a new prong. No doubt. It is a prong by happenstance and everyone on the left ready to jump on the "I told you so" bandwagon.
Again, you are writing it off as 'happenstance,' which is an increasingly tenuous assumption.

What we're saying is that the shooting was, in all probability, 'happenstance.' But, given the proclivities/connections of the teachers and the parents of some of the kids in this district (which is highly suggestive of the 'education' the students were receiving in school and at home, 'a primer' if you will), the funding, organization, and training these kids are receiving in shaping 'the message' is NOT coincidental or a 'natural evolution.'

If it was 'natural,' then why is it a select subset of the kids from the school and not inclusive of others, including those with differing points of view?

If those 'other' students/points of view were included, wouldn't such a 'natural' evolution of message, stemming from the training/funding/organizing, be more likely to focus on 'school safety' (i.e., something all agree on the need for) instead of what it has become - a crusade against guns, gun makers, and the pro-civil rights organizations which protect our rights under the 2nd Amendment - a message entirely consistent with and the one currently espoused by the very organizations providing the funding, organization, training, etc.?

cont'd...
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:07 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 3 of 3...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
If you mean "used" as in people hold them up as an example, I agree. If you mean "used" as is the kids aren't thinking for themselves, I believe you're wrong. There have been obvious cracks in their arguments that a Ron Conway type wouldn't allow to slip through if they were in control.
We agree on the first. We don't quite see eye-to-eye on the second.

I would agree that, at least in some cases, the kids may believe they are 'thinking for themselves.' As just noted, they certainly received a 'primer' in their education and at home. But, I wouldn't agree that they are exclusively or even largely, 'thinking' on their own. I suspect it is more likely the reality that they are being manipulated without fully (or even, in some respects, partially) being aware of how they've been LED and 'maneuvered' to where they are now.

The 'obvious cracks' you cite typically stem from nuances that 14 - 17 year old's are largely incapable of grasping and from a lack of in-depth knowledge or understanding of the material they are, in many respects, simply parroting. That's something difficult to overcome, even with expert training.

Remember, The New Yorker article I quoted a minute ago? There's another tidbit in it.

Quote:
The activists are grieving, too, but it’s not a coincidence that a disproportionate number of the Never Again leaders are dedicated members of the drama club.
This is part of the reason you've been receiving push back on how "well spoken and articulate" the kids are made to appear. It's been clearly shown that, when "off script," they are often foul-mouthed and can't defend/define their own positions. When putting out 'prepared statements,' much of the time, they 'sound' almost adult in their presentation. Given that those prepared presentations are, almost verbatim, bullet points from the organizations and their sites doing the funding, organizing, training, etc., they should 'sound' that way. But, that is highly suggestive of those kids being able to read/recite a 'script,' while not necessarily being reflective of their own 'thinking' or, at least, not having been 'crafted' from their own thinking.

Given that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I see no evidence of this not being their message. That is my entire point. I agree that there are people supporting, training etc. But wanting more gun control seems to be exactly their message and has been since day one.
This thread is largely inductive in that it is showing what groups are involved, what that involvement has been, how the "kids' message" has 'evolved' or 'morphed' into one not only consistent with, but nearly verbatim to, that of the groups involved. Will we ever be able to provide definitive, "hard" evidence, particularly in this venue? As has been stated, several times, that answer is, clearly, "No."

Then again, inductive argument only shows that a conclusion is probable. That seems to be pretty much what was stated earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
...Legally, the standard in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in civil cases it is "preponderance of evidence."...

As for history and particularly sociology, what passes for theories and evidence is much, much looser...

Back to "kids demanding gun control." ... the arguments I made are all verifiable. The message pushed by the kids is *known*, the message pushed by the gun control groups is *known*, so they can be compared directly. More importantly, the source of *funding* and *logistic support* for events is known. It's been posted here many times. Those are actually FACTS.
As has been stated, you are attempting to push deductive logic. You have begun with a deductive premise...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
If you can show me that somehow these kids don't want to do what they are doing, or that they have changed their tune, or there is more here than alignment of message by happenstance, then I'm all ears.
...requiring that we disavow you of or persuade you to alter that premise. Okay. That is consistent with the rules of deductive argument; i.e., if the premise is undermined, the entire argument is also undermined.

The problem is one that induction and deduction are separate types of logic and the rules are such that they cannot be intertwined. All induction can do is show probability; albeit, in this case, seemingly strong probabilities that the premise presented and the one being promoted by "their side" is likely false.

The best we can do, at least in the case of those who've already reached some form of conclusion, is what you've already allowed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Look, it is not lost on me you are trying to document the apparatus assisting and supporting these kids. The issue is, people here in particular, are susceptible to reading that as a 'conspiracy'. That is why I come back to it not being so. I am not suggesting you, personally, are claiming it is a conspiracy but there are people who pretend to be on our side (Infowars for example) that have called these people crisis actors etc. They have lied on us time and time again and make anyone in the middle turn away from us because we end up looking like jackwagons. This is WHY we are losing in some areas because we have alienated the middle because of the fake right.
As stated, this isn't about 'undercovering a grand conspiracy.' It's about simply showing how the existing network has become involved in funding, organizing, training, and promoting these kids. It demonstrates how (and why) a select group of students have become national media personalities and how the 'message' they espouse has gone from 'stricter background checks in the interest of school security' to what it has become.

It provides a probable 'answer' as to why other voices from that school and neighboring ones are not being heard; whether due to an antithetical message to those groups behind these kids or due to seemingly not being viewed as the most efficacious to present. It provides 'answers' to some of the questions presented in the OP and elsewhere; something 'happenstance' and simple 'support' doesn't. (Again, do you truly think millions of dollars and the time/effort of the groups shown in this thread would be invested by these groups and left to the 'evolving thought processes' of 14 - 17 year old's to execute in a manner justifying the investment?)

This is why one of your statements in reply to IVC is true...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I am sure they have evolved their thoughts by the people they are surrounded by, as we all are to one extent or another. Their upbringing feeds right into this kind of behavior I think.
Which brings us back to the beginning, your basic premise that a 'natural' line of thinking and research has led the kids through the changes in message. Yet, by definition, "the people they are surrounded by" have nurtured (funded, organized, trained, promoted) the kids and the message. Through that nurturing, the message has evolved; conveniently (ahem) into one identical to that of "the people they are surrounded by" rather than the limited, natural one the kids began with.

It may also be... 'evolving/morphing'... again...

Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg nabs book deal on making of #NeverAgain movement

Quote:
Two siblings who survived the high school shooting in Parkland, Fla. are penning a book about the massacre and the gun-control movement that followed... will chronicle the Valentine's Day Shooting and how the pair — along with other students — aimed to start a revolution to stop gun violence... The 128-page novel will serve as a guide to the student-led movement and detail the "voices of a new generation that are speaking truth to power, and are determined to succeed where their elders have failed," according to Penguin Random House, which is publishing the book.
The novel (a work of fiction) will serve as a guide for... similar movements, maybe?

That's a long way from a call for stricter background checks in the interest of school safety. The 'evolution' taken to get there appears more Rube Goldberg than 'happenstance;' i.e., Goldberg devices are complex 'machines' which string together simple tasks that 'naturally' trigger one another. As 'ridiculous' as a Rube Goldberg device might appear, each function must perform perfectly for the device to work.

So, when you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...a puppet master that is actually pulling the strings and putting words in their mouth is not something I see...
Bear in mind that somebody or several somebodies has to put the device together and it is highly doubtful that, even if the kids were 'gifted' the funding, organization, training, and promotion, that 14 - 17 year old's would have the capacity to do, at the level it is being done, what's being done. Again, if, as you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...the kids want this gun control. They want everyone disarmed. They believe that would keep them safe. They do not understand freedom. They do not understand what it takes to create safety...
Then, by default, they are incapable of understanding how to utilize the monies made available, organizing at the levels they have, and formulating the messages they now propound. Which means it is highly probable/likely (almost assured) somebody else is "behind" this and the messages are being largely parroted, not derived or formulated, by the kids.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-18-2018 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-19-2018, 2:35 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 1 of 3...
Actually, you do. You just use the word "evolved." Use of that term and the arguments you make point to your 'assumption;' i.e., that a 'natural' line of thinking and research has led the kids through the changes in message...
Evolve =/ Morph. Look it up. Different meanings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The reason you don't see it is because of your deductive assumption that this is simply 'natural.' By the rules of logic, such a deductive assumption precludes the possibility of you seeing it any other way and requires you to deduce...
In the absence of evidence of said transformation (morph) rather than evolution, I stand by the premise this hasn't been this radical reformation of their opinion, or "morph", there has been a refining, in a state that resembles their original premise since the first days after the shooting, as I evidenced with the Face the Nation interview where they went to town blaming us (law abiding gun owners) among other things.

They called for gun control from the beginning. They blamed the NRA from the beginning. They called for reform and politicians to be held to account from the beginning. All the same things they are doing now, just with a finer point and with an eye toward actual "reform".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Here's just one of the problems with that deduction. There have been, literally, millions of dollars in funding provided; much of that by large donors connected to the anti-gun organizations highlighted in this thread. Being honest, do you truly think such donors are going to simply turn over that kind of money, then allow 14 - 17 year old kids to 'naturally evolve' their thinking and the subsequent message? Or, is it more likely that such donors are going to take steps to insure and ensure that the 'thinking' and 'messaging' is consistent with the intentions of the donors?
Occam's Razor dude. This kids already aligned with the interests of these groups. You donate money, time and support to people you believe can make a change. I have been doing this with the NRA for decades (hopefully so have you).

Do I believe these groups just give them money? Nope. Do I believe they provide them logistical support etc? Yes. Do they provide that money conditionally? Yep. Are the kids getting rich off of this? For the ones that weren't already rich from their parents, I doubt it.

It is completely reasonable to think that their message is consistent with their donors because their donors weren't around in mass right after the shooting until these kids appeared on TV, called for massive gun control and THEN the donors came out of the woodwork because their messages aligned. The donors were just waiting for someone to come forward like these kids. They didn't find the kids themselves, groom them, then get them on face the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
So, in less than 4 days, these severely traumatized children, ostensibly with the resources available to 14 - 17 year old's, had a plan to organize a nationwide march in less than one month and had a declared policy - stricter background checks.
It's the mentality I mentioned earlier: Why does that guy have a gun? Immediately, the nation as a whole looked to see how this crazy dude got a gun to see if they could forward the narrative. The kids also knew this kid was crazy (at a time when we didn't know yet). I am sure it got back to Hogg and other that the shooter was a crazy idiot and should have never had a gun. They probably knew the next day he shouldn't have had one, while the rest of us were waiting to learn about who the shooter was.

We know the anti-gun groups are vultures, poised to circle and peck at the bodies as soon as they hit the floor. This hasn't changed.

Also, you underestimate the power of social media. There are protests over police shootings sometimes within hours for example. Give those types of people an organization that will amplify their message and they can get 1000s of people organized quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-19-2018, 3:31 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 2 of 3...

So, they wanted stricter background checks in the interest of school safety and vaguely thought that the N.R.A. was in the way. I'll buy that as the thinking of 14 - 17 year old's who've been in a school system noted as "liberal leaning" and with parents that have connections to some of the more 'extreme' Left organizations. This is especially true given the visibility of the discussion regarding background checks legislation a couple of months ago.

But, as IVC states...
I already proved, with the kids own words, that that they didn't start with "we don't want school shootings". They immediately called for gun control. Watch the Face the Nation episode yourself, don't take my word for it.

Their original "policy" is not at odds with where they are now. It has evolved and become more pointed. Influenced by the people around them? Yes. Were they handed a playbook and told to follow it or be cut off from the money? Doubtful, and no evidence to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I have, repeatedly, observed, this isn't about what you or I or pro-gun people already "know or suspect." You keep declaring this and, yet, it is irrelevant to why this thread exists.
This thread is to feed the beast

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Except that Ron Conway
The new boogeyman. Anyone in the valley knows he's been around being anti-gun for a long time. Not new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
and several of the other groups who've been shown to be behind these kids in terms of funding, organizing, training, etc. are actively engaged in targeting investment groups AND actively engaged with these kids. In other words, it's not "by itself," but part of the 'pattern' IVC expressed. While you may write it off as 'happenstance,' what this thread is showing or attempting to show is that the old adage - "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action" (Ian Fleming, Goldfinger) - is likely applicable.
A spy novel lol . Apropos.

Multiple people can in fact come to their own conclusions that closely align. Imagine what this all means about us and the gun industry

The kids called for gun control immediately. The kids at Parkland (not Hogg but many of them) probably knew the kid who had the gun was bat-sh*t crazy long before the rest of us and they probably were texting each other that the crazy classmate that got expelled somehow got a gun. A high school kid would immediately wonder how their crazy classmate got a gun and he shouldn't have been allowed to get one. The thought that this then turns in to calling for stronger background checks (in particular after the news around the FBI etc) doesn't seem like a sudden morph of dog into cat.

When a tragedy happens, people often call out "there outta be a law". Well, no big surprise, and set of high school students called for the same thing, and then figured out what they wanted that law to be after the fact. They didn't have a policy statement in their back pocket ready to go.

Were they influenced? Yes, I am sure they were. Did their message morph? No, it didn't, I think I have been able to illustrate it.

P.S. Documenting who handed them the megaphone is not a bad idea and this most excellent thread has done such.

Last edited by rootuser; 04-19-2018 at 3:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-19-2018, 8:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
P.S. Documenting who handed them the megaphone is not a bad idea and this most excellent thread has done such.
Well, at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

"Morph" means: Change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps...

"Evolve" means: develop gradually...

Look it up... "dude."

Occam's Razor holds that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one. The problem is which you consider 'simpler.'

Even in the Face the Nation interview, the point of reference was 'school shootings.' You'll also note the repeated statements that "we are getting a lot of support" in relation to the 'march.' That interview was less than four, full days after the shooting and, based on The New Yorker article, almost immediately following their "all night planning session" of "just the students."

Other students have attempted to hold marches subsequent to this incident in support of gun rights and were barely noticed by the media or anyone else. (Even when pointed out on this board, criticisms were leveled about how they should have chosen a different name or...) Given that it's been shown Deena Katz, a major player in the Women's March and with ties to George Soros, had a personal connection to... Umm... Yeah.

How the message has morphed/evolved in the last two months in a near verbatim manner consistent with the groups that have become involved...

Which is 'simpler?' I guess it depends on the premise and the requirements one holds to insofar as what constitutes 'acceptable evidence.' I mean, if you don't see a difference between...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
You donate money, time and support to people you believe can make a change. I have been doing this with the NRA for decades (hopefully so have you).
...and the millions of dollars in donations, travel, training, etc., then you have a higher threshold for 'evidence' than this venue is going to be able to provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They didn't find the kids themselves, groom them, then get them on face the nation.
As I said, we generally agree that the shooting was most probably 'happenstance.' As has been 'highlighted,' however, the kids were 'groomed' or 'prepped' in terms of their attitudes, long before the shooting, by family and teachers/school district. As has been amply demonstrated, the kids selected for Face the Nation, CNN, et al. were a select group, not necessarily representing a cross spectrum of student attitudes or reactions.

So, if you're looking for 'evidence' that this was a 'sleeper cell,' you're looking in the wrong direction. If you're looking for 'evidence' that this is a group of kids who were 'selected' (by the media and by anti-gun organizations) from among the student body as the result of a tragedy for exploitation, you're on the right track.

As I said, I don't overlook the power of social media. However, I think you overestimate the 'reach' of 14 - 17 year old's and underestimate or, more accurately, underplay the role of organizations (plural) "that will amplify" and morph/evolve their message for their own ends.

We agree that the students knew the shooter shouldn't have a gun due to 'issues' that should have, most likely, precluded his ownership. But, it's a long way from 'stricter background checks in the interest of school safety' (which was their original 'policy') to where they are now. Were the 'seeds' already there at the time of the shooting? I'd say "yes." But, without the involvement of the groups/individuals highlighted in this thread, they'd be in the same place as those from past shootings.

Is where they are now consistent with that, original policy statement? "Stricter background checks" is more 'gun control.' It also happens to be an exact parroting of the media at that moment. What is more indicative is the narrative that began. Here's another article from The New Yorker on 17 February. Note the portion which begins...

Quote:
The first hint that something might be different this time came the morning after the shootings, from a Douglas High School sophomore...
Then note how they reference the students...

Quote:
...with so much articulacy and moral righteousness...
Read the rest of the sentence in the linked piece as to what the statement was. If that's 'articulate' and 'morally righteous,' then...

Two days later, you have The New Yorker acknowledging that "stricter background checks" was the policy arrived at by the students in terms of "gun control." So, again, if you want to say that they 'started' with 'gun control,' you can. But, saying that they've evolved their message, independent of, yet in such precise alignment with the organizations involved in the funding, organization, training, etc., isn't "Occam's Razor" in that it involves a series of assumptions which are as big a stretch, if not a 'leap' that would intimidate Evel Kneivel, as those who point to the organizations. Likewise...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Were they influenced? Yes, I am sure they were. Did their message morph? No, it didn't, I think I have been able to illustrate it.
I guess it comes down to how you define "influenced" and how narrowly you define "morph/evolve."

If you begin with the idea that the organizations dedicating this much money, time, etc. are largely "boogeymen," a "bogeyman" being an imaginary thing regarded with fear, and, despite your admissions to the 'limited grasp of what it takes and the ramifications of what they are demanding,' that a NATURAL line of thinking and research has led the kids through the changes in message and an exponential growth in their abilities and exposure, then such would be consistent with your argument.

If you begin with recognizing the very real players involved with these kids and that their message has been greatly NURTURED by those players, with those same players exponentially enhancing their exposure, you come to a slightly different line of argument.

What does that mean? That we've 'taken sides' in the old nature vs. nurture debate and are not among the "persuadables."

Meaning we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-19-2018 at 8:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:43 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
They blamed the NRA from the beginning.
Let's just look at this one.

A bunch of kids who know nothing about the NRA decided to blame the NRA. How is this possible or logical on its own unless they were *told* to hate the NRA? The keyword here is *told*.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:46 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 1 of 3...
Thank you for taking time to write this great summary. It addresses point by point what's been said in this thread and exposes all the straw man arguments presented along the way.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:55 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
"Morph" means: Change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps...

"Evolve" means: develop gradually...

Look it up... "dude."
Sleight of hand there a little: You left out the rest of the definition from Oxford:

"Change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps using computer animation techniques."

We aren't talking about computer animation techniques, but it is used colloquially in speech so, let's go to some examples.

Here are some examples used in the definition by Webster:

"The picture of a dog morphed into a picture of a cat." (Radical change, not evolutionary)

"Using the new software, we morphed a picture of a dog into a picture of a cat." (Radical change)

"a quiet college student who has morphed into a glamorous actress" (Radical change)

"He is trying to morph himself into a different person" (Radical change)

All of these indicate a radical change. The examples (of which there are over a dozen on Oxford as well) indicate these huge changes. As used in our every day language, and as indicated in the examples, morph is associated with large, radical changes.

Evolve on the other hand, if we use Oxford:

"Gradually the notion of consent evolved into informed consent, with the emphasis being on information about risks."
"Some of the new names at past British Opens soon evolved into familiar names."
"His son Charles joined the firm at the age of 13 and the business gradually evolved into providing pet and garden supplies."

Slow, gradual change. A computer, morphs something in a matter of seconds, evolution takes a lot longer and a dog never becomes a cat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Occam's Razor holds that the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one. The problem is which you consider 'simpler.'
I believe it's simpler to think kids who have just been shot at and have dead friends killed by another one of their nut case classmates might call for gun control than they started with "we need school safety" and that morphed into gun control.

Bottom line here: They want to be saying what they are saying. You haven't been to upscale high school lately clearly. A LOT of kids feel exactly like these kids do. IF we believe the polls, kids are in fact worried about being shot in school. These kids are not taught the second amendment in context of freedom, they are only taught guns are bad. So why is anyone surprised when their message aligns with the left by happenstance once they get shot at?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Other students have attempted to hold marches subsequent to this incident in support of gun rights and were barely noticed by the media or anyone else. (Even when pointed out on this board, criticisms were leveled about how they should have chosen a different name or...) Given that it's been shown Deena Katz, a major player in the Women's March and with ties to George Soros, had a personal connection to... Umm... Yeah.
Good point, however, did hundreds of thousands show up to the rally for the pro-gun rights student and the media failed to cover it? OR did just not that many people show up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
How the message has morphed/evolved in the last two months in a near verbatim manner consistent with the groups that have become involved...
Don't doubt it. You start off yelling for gun control, and then read a little bit of what these people are feeding you and suddenly you sound like them. Not at all shocked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Which is 'simpler?' I guess it depends on the premise and the requirements one holds to insofar as what constitutes 'acceptable evidence.' I mean, if you don't see a difference between...

...and the millions of dollars in donations, travel, training, etc., then you have a higher threshold for 'evidence' than this venue is going to be able to provide.
Well, we won't have any direct evidence to either way I don't think, this is why I go with the simplest: The left is ALWAYS waiting for the next tragedy to strike. They are organized and funded. These kids start yelling about gun control and the left hands them a megaphone. This is simpler than the left brainwashing these kids because originally they were calling for school safety and the left tricked them into calling for gun control... And suddenly they change from dog to cat (morph!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I said, we generally agree that the shooting was most probably 'happenstance.' As has been 'highlighted,' however, the kids were 'groomed' or 'prepped' in terms of their attitudes, long before the shooting, by family and teachers/school district. As has been amply demonstrated, the kids selected for Face the Nation, CNN, et al. were a select group, not necessarily representing a cross spectrum of student attitudes or reactions.
Yes, their parents raised them to already believe what the left was saying. They got the unfortunate opportunity of being able to become poster children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
So, if you're looking for 'evidence' that this was a 'sleeper cell,' you're looking in the wrong direction. If you're looking for 'evidence' that this is a group of kids who were 'selected' (by the media and by anti-gun organizations) from among the student body as the result of a tragedy for exploitation, you're on the right track.
I don't think they are crisis actors etc. I think they were willing to go on the news, their parents didn't mind and probably encouraged them to (I wouldn't let me kid do that if possible), and they wanted to be known. Welcome to the ills of social media narcissism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I said, I don't overlook the power of social media. However, I think you overestimate the 'reach' of 14 - 17 year old's and underestimate or, more accurately, underplay the role of organizations (plural) "that will amplify" and morph/evolve their message for their own ends.
This essentially follows the recipe of viral type behavior on the internet. A few influencers become paramount in something going viral, quite literally overnight. Some of those influencers are the media, some are these organizations, but really, the world wanted to know WTF happened and these kids were there to tell their story. Happens a lot during tragedies in this country, shooting or otherwise. Their reach only revolves around Americans loving a crisis and they were thrust into one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We agree that the students knew the shooter shouldn't have a gun due to 'issues' that should have, most likely, precluded his ownership. But, it's a long way from 'stricter background checks in the interest of school safety' (which was their original 'policy') to where they are now. Were the 'seeds' already there at the time of the shooting? I'd say "yes." But, without the involvement of the groups/individuals highlighted in this thread, they'd be in the same place as those from past shootings.
If we believe the seeds were there, then it isn't a radical step to see where they are now. I heard some Hogg quote today about school safety. They haven't abandoned that, they've expanded really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Is where they are now consistent with that, original policy statement? "Stricter background checks" is more 'gun control.' It also happens to be an exact parroting of the media at that moment. What is more indicative is the narrative that began. Here's another article from The New Yorker on 17 February. Note the portion which begins...

Then note how they reference the students...

Read the rest of the sentence in the linked piece as to what the statement was. If that's 'articulate' and 'morally righteous,' then...

Two days later, you have The New Yorker acknowledging that "stricter background checks" was the policy arrived at by the students in terms of "gun control." So, again, if you want to say that they 'started' with 'gun control,' you can. But, saying that they've evolved their message, independent of, yet in such precise alignment with the organizations involved in the funding, organization, training, etc., isn't "Occam's Razor" in that it involves a series of assumptions which are as big a stretch, if not a 'leap' that would intimidate Evel Kneivel, as those who point to the organizations. Likewise...
There is no "Can" I say they started with that, they DID start with it. You can hear them for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I guess it comes down to how you define "influenced" and how narrowly you define "morph/evolve."
Yes, fair point. Looking at the definitions yet again, I still see every example and every day language pointing to morph as a radical change and evolve being more graduated. That said, if you believe the two are the same, then so be it.

If we get succinct: Their ideas of gun control became more focused on specific policies rather than screaming "there outta be a law".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If you begin with the idea that the organizations dedicating this much money, time, etc. are largely "boogeymen," a "bogeyman" being an imaginary thing regarded with fear, and, despite your admissions to the 'limited grasp of what it takes and the ramifications of what they are demanding,' that a NATURAL line of thinking and research has led the kids through the changes in message and an exponential growth in their abilities and exposure, then such would be consistent with your argument.
I am mostly consistent with my thoughts. I find I don't have to change my mind often if I am consistent but have to change it a lot if I am inconsistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If you begin with recognizing the very real players involved with these kids and that their message has been greatly NURTURED by those players, with those same players exponentially enhancing their exposure, you come to a slightly different line of argument.
I don't doubt what you've documented. The players are real. They spend a truckload of money to remind us how real they are but they don't run the world by themselves. They are actually vultures and need the tragedies like Parkland to give them purpose in their miserable existences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What does that mean? That we've 'taken sides' in the old nature vs. nurture debate and are not among the "persuadables."

Meaning we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
The hardest part people seem to grasp is that we are the minority. Most people in this country are not gun owners. The vast majority of America wants stricter background checks. By any measure you take, this is the case. These kids reflect what most people want. It doesn't make it right, it simply makes it common. It didn't take George Soros or his money or his political clout to convince these kids they wanted stricter gun control and background checks. They were convinced of that before the first round was fired and their tragedy gave them a pulpit from which to preach.

All these "media" outlets are in it for the money. Clicks, viewers, and likes. If no one was reading about the kids, if no one was watching or the majority of people clicked thumbs down, they would move on. They don't because they are making money from people who agree with them, which is a big part of this country to one degree or another.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but these kids are actually saying what a lot of people want to hear and that is how they continue to make the cycle.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:03 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Let's just look at this one.

A bunch of kids who know nothing about the NRA decided to blame the NRA. How is this possible or logical on its own unless they were *told* to hate the NRA? The keyword here is *told*.
The NRA is not a new concept to high school students. Every single friend of mine that has high school kids all know who the NRA is. They have been told for eons we are the enemy. They don't live in a bubble. They have heard us likened to "terrorists" long before the shooting. These Parkland kids came into this whole thing ready to blame us. They weren't told "blame the NRA" after the shooting by some magical boogeyman conspiracy theorist, they figured that out all by themselves. They were told and conditioned long before any of this.

Now if you mean the media "told" them the NRA was the anti-christ before this thing started and brainwashed them with false info, then you and I are in strong agreement. They were "told" for sure in that sense.

You wrote that these kids said "we don't want school shootings" and changed their way to defined gun control.

I provided evidence, with their words, this was not the case and they called for gun control immediately basically. They had been "told" how to think about this long before the tragedy happened.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 04-20-2018, 2:02 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Sleight of hand there a little: You left out the rest of the definition from Oxford...
Really? You want to go there; i.e., split hairs over 'technical morphology' rather than colloquialisms and commonly used/understood 'synonyms?' That's the best you've got at this point?

It seems that I'm not the one attempting "sleight of hand" or, more correctly, "distracting" from what is being said. You do realize that the word "morph" applies to more than just computers, right? It also includes "rearranging a tune from one time signature to another." If that's insufficient, you might try synonyms for the word "morph" - Here.

Quote:
alter, modify, transform, contort, distort, deform, doctor, mutate, recast, transmute, wring
"Evolution" or "to evolve" or "something that evolved," by definition, is a process of "mutation;" the root word meaning "a changing." What are synonyms for the word "change?"

Quote:
adjustment, advance, development, difference, diversity, innovation, modification, reversal, revision, revolution, shift, switch, transformation, transition, variation, about-face, addition, break, compression, contraction, conversion, correction, distortion, diversification, metamorphosis, modulation, mutation, novelty, permutation, reconstruction, refinement, remodeling, surrogate, tempering, transmutation, turn, turnover, variance, variety, vicissitude
How much further would you like me to drill down? Do you really want to play it that obtuse or shall we move on? (Bear in mind that if we go there, many, many, many threads are going to quickly derail. Or, is that the point here?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I believe it's simpler to think kids who have just been shot at and have dead friends killed by another one of their nut case classmates might call for gun control than they started with "we need school safety" and that morphed into gun control.
You can believe what you want; but, trying to split 'gun control' and 'school safety' in this instance is altering the original context and even the original 'policy' put forth by the kids themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They want to be saying what they are saying.
As I've said, repeatedly, I would agree that, at least in some cases, the kids may believe they are 'thinking for themselves.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
These kids are not taught the second amendment in context of freedom, they are only taught guns are bad. So why is anyone surprised when their message aligns with the left by happenstance once they get shot at?
Got that covered too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
So, they wanted stricter background checks in the interest of school safety and vaguely thought that the N.R.A. was in the way. I'll buy that as the thinking of 14 - 17 year old's who've been in a school system noted as "liberal leaning" and with parents that have connections to some of the more 'extreme' Left organizations. This is especially true given the visibility of the discussion regarding background checks legislation a couple of months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Good point, however, did hundreds of thousands show up to the rally for the pro-gun rights student and the media failed to cover it? OR did just not that many people show up?
You're looking at the results rather than what led/contributed to the results as justification? Isn't the very basis of the discussion being had on this thread what/who is contributing to the results?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...then read a little bit of what these people are feeding you and suddenly you sound like them. Not at all shocked.
Nice try at ignoring virtually the entirety of this thread and what the kids themselves have been saying about being 'taught and advised.' In other words, there's much more at work here than "reading a little bit" and that's what the thread is showing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Well, we won't have any direct evidence to either way I don't think, this is why I go with the simplest...
Okay. That's enough. What you are now presenting is obtuseness as 'argument' and simply being dismissive of everything presented, including statements by the kids themselves, individuals involved, etc. Is there some inference involved in portions of what is being linked to? Absolutely. But, then again, as I've said, at least a couple of times, and as others have noted...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
I suppose we could totally derail this thread in a distraction of dueling dictionary entries over what constitutes "evidence" and "speculation," not to mention how such terms apply to formal, legal courts, the court of public opinion, and personal opinions...

You see, that is the point. This isn't a court of law. While some (maybe, much) of what has been provided could be brought into a court of law, perhaps with a bit more technical drudgery (which is why there are quotation marks around the word "evidence" in the thread title), as 'admissible' in such a court, that's not where the battle is at the moment. The battle is in the court of public opinion, which is formed from a plethora of personal opinions.

You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion. I am entitled to mine. Other members and readers are entitled to their's. All of them are based on some form of information...

How about we allow the information to continue to flow so that others can form their own opinions regarding the validity, usefulness (even if just personally), and 'value' of the information being provided instead of arguing over misrepresentation, diversion, deflection, and truncation of what has actually been posted; where that information ends up 'buried' and perceptibly inaccessible for many...

No one is going to be able to produce, to your satisfaction, a notarized piece from Everytown or Giffords, et al. declaring "we are responsible." Instead, what we have done is produce statements from those organizations (and others), declarations by the Parkland kids, articles written by authors purporting to have spoken with representatives of various organizations, websites by the kids/organizations noting interaction, etc. As I said, some/much of that could be, technically, made to suffice insofar as admissibility in a court of law. But, this is NOT a court of law and neither is that where the message is being purveyed or the arguments are being had, at the moment and in this context.

Once again, if the entire 'substance' of this thread is 'irrelevant' to you, then, by all means, start your own thread, focus on the desired content you wish to pursue, using the standards you wish to adhere to, and allow the rest of us to pursue our own 'investigation' into matters...
Again, you are working from a deductive premise and definitions inconsistent and, to a degree, antithetical to this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
If we believe the seeds were there, then it isn't a radical step to see where they are now. I heard some Hogg quote today about school safety. They haven't abandoned that, they've expanded really.
Basically, you claim they started with 'gun control for school safety,' then claim the cry was for 'gun control;' eliminating the context to support your own argument. You then return to 'gun control' and 'school safety' as if they were two, separate issues when you acknowledge that they knew the kid and point to an interview which was contextualized by 'school safety' and declare the kids were worried about being shot.

In other words, you're offering something akin to a circular argument by divorcing yourself from the original context. You then distract with what someone else has claimed to be 'straw man arguments;' a term which might not, strictly, apply, but is close enough. You then dismiss what has been presented, using a standard which, from the very beginning (including the thread title itself) has never been applicable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Looking at the definitions yet again, I still see every example and every day language pointing to morph as a radical change and evolve being more graduated.
"Evolution" or "to evolve" is not, by definition or necessity, gradual. This is just one example of why relying on Webster's is a risk. Let's just stipulate that there are contending schools of thought related to 'evolution' and how rapidly or slowly it occurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Their ideas of gun control became more focused on specific policies rather than screaming "there outta be a law".
And this thread is pointing to how that 'focus' on specific policies was, likely, engendered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I am mostly consistent with my thoughts. I find I don't have to change my mind often if I am consistent but have to change it a lot if I am inconsistent.
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, indicative of deductive thinking. It's also consistent with circular reasoning. By the rules of logic, if you accept a deductive premise, then what is deduced must be consistent with that premise.

As I've said, what we are producing in this thread is inductive. Where deductive reasoning requires a conclusion (and argument) that is certain and consistent, inductive reasoning only comes to probable conclusions, meaning there may be inconsistencies or anomalies or incomplete data. In other words, by definition and the rules of logic, your deductive argument must be consistent and certain, where what is being presented doesn't have to be. It's the very reason why you cannot mix deductive and inductive arguments.

But, as you've maintained, on several occasions, your druthers would be a 'different conversation' when it comes to these kids. As I just said, we 'get that,' but that's a different thread, with a different context, a different premise, and different standards than this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
It's a hard pill to swallow, but these kids are actually saying what a lot of people want to hear and that is how they continue to make the cycle.
We all get that. What we are objecting to is the inaccuracy of how these kids are being presented, how these kids got the microphone, how "their" message has been morphed (whether the kids think so or not), and how they are achieving their results. What this thread suggests as a strong possibility, even most likely, by their own statements and those of the people/organizations involved, with a few, plausible and logical inferences noted, is that while the 'message' the kids promote may have begun with the seeds planted by teachers/families, the nurturing (funding, organizing, training, et al.) has been, at least as important, if not a more significant factor in how that 'message' has morphed/evolved. The purpose being, not to change the minds of those who've come to a decision, but to provide information in the battle for the "persuadables."

As you've declared...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
So attack him on the issue.
Which is precisely what we're doing here; the 'issue' being, evidently, something different than you envision or desire. If you want a different type of discussion, then, by all means, start your own thread and let's have at. Until then, we're moving on with this one, as appropriate and will simply have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-20-2018 at 4:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-20-2018, 4:10 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
...You wrote that these kids said "we don't want school shootings" and changed their way to defined gun control.

I provided evidence, with their words, this was not the case and they called for gun control immediately basically. They had been "told" how to think about this long before the tragedy happened.
Not to kibbitz on your interplay with someone else, but listen to the first minute of your 'evidence'...



Now, that was 18 February. In that first minute, he declares that they have "a lot of support from the older generations here," "the adult generation has been playing around while my generation has been losing our lives," "sad...while 17 people are being slaughtered..." and "March for our Lives has support from everybody."

If you read the 19 February piece I linked to from The New Yorker, you find...

Quote:
...the activist movement that emerged in its aftermath had a name (Never Again), a policy goal (stricter background checks for gun buyers), and a plan for a nationwide protest (a March for Our Lives, scheduled for March 24th). It also had a panel of luminary teens who were reminding America that the shooting was not a freak accident or a natural disaster but the result of actual human decisions...
How was all that put together? The name, #NeverAgain...

Quote:
...He had thought of the name, he later told me, “while sitting on the toilet in my Ghostbuster pajamas.”
I'll buy that of a 17 year old. Although, a 17 year old wearing 'Ghostbuster' pajamas is...??? But, to continue...

Quote:
In early interviews Kasky had criticized the Republican Party, but he and his friends had decided since that the movement should be nonpartisan. Surely everyone—gun owner or pacifist, conservative or liberal—could agree that school massacres should be stopped.
Okay. Nonpartisan, despite every supportive agency shown in this thread being "Left Wing." But, of significance... "school massacres" and, earlier, "stricter background checks for gun buyers;" giving the context and stating the policy goal.

Quote:
The group stayed up all night creating social-media accounts and trying to figure out what needed to be said, “because the important thing here wasn’t talking about gore,” Kasky said on Sunday. “It was talking about change and it was talking about remembrance.” It was then that they decided to petition for more thorough background checks. As Alfonso Calderon, a co-founder of Never Again, who was there that night, told me, “Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at my school, was reported to the police thirty-nine times.” He added, “We have to vote people out who have been paid for by the N.R.A. They’re allowing this to happen. They’re making it easier for people like Nick Cruz to acquire an AR-15.”
How would those kids know about the "39 times?" Of course, media reports on 14 February were already reporting the AR-15. By 16 February, the local Sheriff's Department was declaring "approximately 20 calls for service." (Listen to the video.) It was, in fact, a media report which cited the "39 times" on the morning of 16 February.

So, we have the name coming up while sitting on the toilet in Ghostbuster pajamas, "39 times" in a media report (but, not officially from the Sheriff's Department at that point), along with "AR-15" being cited from the beginning in media coverage. Again, consistent with 14 - 17 year old's.

However, you will note...

Quote:
It was after she went to grief counselling, and after the candlelight vigil that evening, that Corin first talked to the Democratic Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
That was on the day after the shooting, 15 February. Of course, that same girl had "worked on a fifty-page project about gun control for her A.P. composition-and-rhetoric class a couple of months before." So, we have a big, anti-gun Representative (former Chair of the DNC) meeting with one of the student leaders the day after the shooting; a student leader who had, "a couple months before," written a paper on gun control.

You do recall what Debbie Wasserman Schultz had said about 'honoring the children' killed in 'mass shootings' in 2016...



Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Wait. That sounds familiar. Uh... The 17 February article from The New Yorker...

Quote:
“I don’t want your condolences..." In the hours that followed, others joined Chadwick in rejecting the platitudes...
What were the condolences?

Quote:
Mr Trump had tweeted his “prayers and condolences” to the families of those murdered, adding: “No child, teacher or anyone else should ever feel unsafe in an American school.”
Okay. Two, different girls cited. But, we know that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was meeting with the kids two days before... Oh, wait. That last article was dated the same day she met with the one kid cited in The New Yorker article.

Quote:
On Sunday, having announced the March for Our Lives on the morning talk shows...
Know what the date was on that Sunday? 18 February. Three days after at least one of the leaders had met with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Yet, the permit for the DC March wasn't even filed until 21 February and wasn't granted until 7 March. Now, while announcing a march you didn't have permission for is consistent with 14 - 17 year old's, who stepped in to make it a reality? Deena Katz. Where do I get this?

See the permit application.

Thus, between 15 February and 21 February or within 1 week of the shooting on 14 February, you had at least TWO, big name people working with these kids; Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Deena Katz (who had a personal connection to one of the families and who is tied to George Soros through the Women's March Los Angeles Foundation). Within that same time frame, the message from the kids was initially drawing its 'facts' directly from media accounts and the policy they came up with was to call for stricter background checks for gun buyers because kids are dying in school (mass) shootings.

Also by 21 February, you had...

Quote:
The students billed as leading the gun control charge “from their parents’ living rooms” after last week’s deadly high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, are receiving help from seasoned left-wing activists.

Deena Katz, co-executive director of the Women’s March LA Foundation, submitted the application for a National Park Service permit for the March for Our Lives, the March 24 rally on the National Mall described as a student-led protest.

The event’s website, which doesn’t mention the Women’s March, says the March for Our Lives was “created by, inspired by, and led by students across the country” and headed by junior Cameron Kasky, a survivor of the Feb. 14 shooting that killed 17 teenagers and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Meanwhile, gun-control advocacy groups have become involved in the “sister marches” being planned at more than two dozen U.S. cities and London.

In Denver, the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence applied for a permit for its March 24 rally at the state capitol, according to a state spokesman, while Moms Demand Action, backed by billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, has jumped in even as it tries to keep the spotlight on the teens.

After posting a Facebook event for “NYC-March for Our Lives,” Moms Demand Action insisted that “it is not a Moms Demand Action event,” although the group is “honored and excited to work so closely with the amazing students organizing the March For Our Lives in NYC.”
You will note that the title of that piece demonstrates a certain... 'questioning' (note the quote marks)... about whether this was truly, student-led...

Women’s March leader works behind scenes on ‘student-led’ Parkland gun-control protest

Okay. So, who is the kid referring to in his 18 February Face the Nation interview when he refers to "a lot of support from the older generations here" and "March for our Lives has support from everybody." Parents? Teachers? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Deena Katz? Others?

As has been, repeatedly, stipulated, the original tenets of the message and the movement might have been that of the kids. However, it's quite clear that you had some big name, anti-gun personalities immediately involved; personalities and organizations who were actually 'making it happen.' Even the language being used by the students in the Face the Nation interview and earlier comes directly from those sources; from thoughts/prayers are not enough to "blood on their hands" to an AR-15 is a "weapon of war" to blaming Trump (note that Hogg is reading his statement, watch his eyes moving) who had been in office for just about a year, but completely ignoring Obama's previous 8 years in Office and those times when Democrats had a larger majority than Republicans have had under Trump.

So... Questions? Sure. We have more than a few. Direct or "hard" evidence? Some of it would be admissible in Court. Some of it could be 'massaged' to the standards of admissibility. But, the timeline, the language, and the personalities/groups suggest something less 'simple' or 'natural' than you claim.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:48 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
They have been told for eons we are the enemy. They don't live in a bubble. They have heard us likened to "terrorists" long before the shooting.
So much for "independent thinking" or any kind of "research..."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:06 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Really? You want to go there; i.e., split hairs over 'technical morphology' rather than colloquialisms and commonly used/understood 'synonyms?'
I gave the colloquial examples from multiple sources which illustrate they are not completely interchangeable as well as the definitions but for sake of argument, let's assume they are exactly the same.

So the claim that the kids called for school safety and then morphed/evolved to specific gun control has been debunked. They didn't start out at school safety only. It's there, in their own words. They called for gun control immediately. Perhaps to "enhance" school safety but they certainly wanted gun control and blamed the NRA. They immediately went after guns.

That leaves us only with the degree to which they morphed/evolved their already stated gun control argument.

Since we agree that they are influenced by those around them most likely, and were probably brainwashed about guns before any of this happened, their morphiciation and or evolution wasn't all that significant. It went from generic to specific, which is not a surprise in the wake of a disaster. We saw this happen in Katrina from the President of the US. When they took guns from people for "safety" the President said it shouldn't happen. Over time, there was legislation put in place to stop it from happening. From generic to specific. The idea evolved/morphed exactly within the realm it started. It did not go from dog to cat, but from dog to a more distinct dog.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
As I've said, repeatedly, I would agree that, at least in some cases, the kids may believe they are 'thinking for themselves.'
I am sure they believe it, but as others have "hinted", they are paid, and therefore may or may not believe it, and use certain words as pejoratives on purpose to specifically muddy the waters and forward grand conspiracy theories that fit the fake right narrative that maybe they are crisis actors etc etc. Not suggesting you have said that, but others like to pretend to be right, and hint around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Nice try at ignoring virtually the entirety of this thread and what the kids themselves have been saying about being 'taught and advised.' In other words, there's much more at work here than "reading a little bit" and that's what the thread is showing.
They have said that, and I don't ignore the fact they are influenced by those around them. I have written it over and over. So let me be clear: They are influenced and getting council and help and advantage and support from those around them, which are currently the left wing, anti-gun people in this country. Hopefully that was clear enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Basically, you claim they started with 'gun control for school safety,' then claim the cry was for 'gun control;' eliminating the context to support your own argument. You then return to 'gun control' and 'school safety' as if they were two, separate issues when you acknowledge that they knew the kid and point to an interview which was contextualized by 'school safety' and declare the kids were worried about being shot.
They treated them interchangeably, much like we are treating morph and or evolve. Here are just a couple of quotes from among their first interviews calling for gun control and not mentioning school safety:

David Hogg says "President Trump you control the House of Representatives. You control the Senate and you control the executive. You haven't taken a single bill for mental health care or gun control and passed it." Says nothing about school safety although could have been on their mind?? Maybe so.

Kaskey mentions "He has guns and I understand that having concealed weapons is good for protecting yourself. But an AR 15 is not needed to protect your house from robbers." Originally, almost immediately, they are going after the AR 15 and what is "needed" and not needed. That's gun control, albeit it a lesser degree than gun confiscation for example. They are immediately going after "assault weapons" (AR 15). Their argument didn't morph/change/evolve/transform/mutate or anything like it when it comes to wanting to go after the AR 15 in some manner. They hit on it immediately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
"Evolution" or "to evolve" is not, by definition or necessity, gradual. This is just one example of why relying on Webster's is a risk. Let's just stipulate that there are contending schools of thought related to 'evolution' and how rapidly or slowly it occurs.
That's fair. We can use them interchangeably as mentioned above. I did not rely on only Webster, I relied on multiple sources with colloquial references all which indicate the same thing: Morph = massive change (dog into cat) and Evolution = less pronounced change and the dog never becomes a cat. That said, neither of them specifically preclude the other. So regardless of how they are used in the colloquial examples, let's assume they are exactly the same.

Some have suggested they changed/morphed/evolved their argument from school safety to gun control. I have provided ample reference to debunk this claim. They didn't even add in the AR 15 later, they went after that right away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We all get that. What we are objecting to is the inaccuracy of how these kids are being presented, how these kids got the microphone, how "their" message has been morphed (whether the kids think so or not), and how they are achieving their results. What this thread suggests as a strong possibility, even most likely, by their own statements and those of the people/organizations involved, with a few, plausible and logical inferences noted, is that while the 'message' the kids promote may have begun with the seeds planted by teachers/families, the nurturing (funding, organizing, training, et al.) has been, at least as important, if not a more significant factor in how that 'message' has morphed/evolved. The purpose being, not to change the minds of those who've come to a decision, but to provide information in the battle for the "persuadables."

Which is precisely what we're doing here; the 'issue' being, evidently, something different than you envision or desire. If you want a different type of discussion, then, by all means, start your own thread and let's have at. Until then, we're moving on with this one, as appropriate and will simply have to agree to disagree.
Just not enough room to keep everything in the thread, but I get what you are after.

At this point right now, some of these kids are off the rails. They are absolutely empowered and emboldened by the left and the fake right in stereo. The left makes them poster children. The fake right bothers them about college and then gets their asses handed to them. Both sides are handing them a microphone. They quite literally got Laura whoever to take a "vacation" lol and she has lost over half of her sponsors. They beat her down. It was kinda funny I must admit. Outwitted by a 17 year old

All I have been after is to illustrate, gun control came immediately (done), and they believe what they are saying and want to say it (something you and I both believe is the case).

The degree to which they have been influenced we will never be able to tell for sure. Everyone wants to believe they are just a mouthpiece but I submit they are not mouthpieces and are actually part of the apparatus. I think this thread overall has proved that with the evidence. And to your point, they have been coached, and assisted, but they were also indoctrinated long before this event as indicated by their willingness to go after the NRA, guns and everything pretty much immediately.

This exact thing happened after Columbine if you recall. Some of those kids (now adults) and their parents are still very vocal anti-2A, even though they are out of the public spotlight.

P.S. TO sum up: I agree and always have that they are getting support and there is "evidence" that bad actors are behind them. What I take exception with is exactly how brainwashed they are by these people. That ship sailed long before any of this IMHO and I have provided direct quotes to support such.

Last edited by rootuser; 04-20-2018 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:16 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
So much for "independent thinking" or any kind of "research..."
Agreed there. Good point. They were influenced by their parents and their teachers and the media BEFORE this. They just aren't old enough to have perspective as those of us that are older have. I am sure they immediately went to the interwebs and researched. But I would imagine they researched and picked facts that fit their narrative: NRA bad. AR15 bad. Guns in the hands of crazies everywhere!
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-21-2018, 2:18 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 1 of 2...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
So the claim that the kids called for school safety and then morphed/evolved to specific gun control has been debunked.
Not quite 'debunked.' Remember, the kids talked of things from 'gun control' to metal detectors to mental health to...

It was the media, in particular, that focused on the 'gun issue' in the reporting; but, it wasn't a matter of the kids going primarily or solely "after guns" and, in the beginning, the focus or context was on kids dying in schools, even when talking about 'gun control.'

In short, when you acknowledge...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They didn't start out at school safety only. It's there, in their own words. They called for gun control immediately. Perhaps to "enhance" school safety but they certainly wanted gun control and blamed the NRA. They immediately went after guns.
You are providing the media spin in that you are conveying that they immediately went after "gun control" and school safety was an ancillary issue for them at best. As you say, you can hear it in their own words; but, you have to listen to what they are saying rather than focus on 'gun control.' Again, much of what they presented at that moment was a reflection of the media diatribe which was going on and had been in the heat surrounding the national reciprocity issue, bump stocks, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
That leaves us only with the degree to which they morphed/evolved their already stated gun control argument.
Yes and no. You want to begin with 'gun control' being their platform instead of part of that platform. IVC's progression is more accurate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."
How quickly that progression happened in conjunction with known, anti-gun personalities, in that first week is something I highlighted for you earlier. Remember, initially, it wasn't just the half dozen "Parkland survivors" we're now familiar with and who continue being promoted which were being interviewed. Yet, they very quickly became almost the only ones the media would 'talk to' or allow access to the microphone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Since we agree that they are influenced by those around them most likely, and were probably brainwashed about guns before any of this happened, their morphiciation and or evolution wasn't all that significant.
Again, even the 'gun control' portion of their message morphed from their own declaration of 'policy' - tighter background checks - to a much broader call for 'gun control' quickly as the media pounced on that portion of their message. How quickly that occurred is where you seem to be getting hung up; equating "their message" with the focus the media placed on a portion of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
When they took guns from people for "safety" the President said it shouldn't happen. Over time, there was legislation put in place to stop it from happening. From generic to specific. The idea evolved/morphed exactly within the realm it started. It did not go from dog to cat, but from dog to a more distinct dog.
Bad analogy. Your example goes from 'freedom' to 'repression' to official rejection of that 'repression' to greater protection of the pre-existing 'freedom' via new laws.

Their message has gone from a somewhat 'generic' platform (with several, specific planks) contextualized by safety for the younger generations in schools to focused on a portion of that 'generic' platform ('gun control') to a 'new' general platform championing greater and greater 'gun control.'

Did it happen relatively quickly? Yes. But, that is the progression actually seen, not the one pushed by portions of the media. In fact, it was portions of the media which created the focus you now ascribe to the kids and the 'support' provided by those being listed in this thread aided in that focus; both from the media and in morphing the message being presented by the kids from 'gun control' as an 'heated' portion of their original message to virtually the sole focus of the message.

Was 'gun control' there from the 'beginning?' Yes.

Was it the only issue being addressed as to how to bring safety to the schools or, in their words, "their generation who are being slaughtered in schools?" No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I am sure they believe it, but as others have "hinted", they are paid, and therefore may or may not believe it...
I'm sure, to a point, a few of the kids who've become media personalities still believe that this is 'their' message. I'm also sure, at this point, that some, specific ones in particular see this as a form of 'opportunity;' not necessarily to 'change the World' or achieve 'gun control' though. Unfortunately for them, as the 'passions' die down and the network being referenced in the thread begins looking for new faces and new avenues of attack, the prominence of those individuals will recede nearly as quickly as it rose; severely limiting the opportunities being perceived and any benefits currently arising from those currently being presented (travel, media attention, book deals, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They are influenced and getting council and help and advantage and support from those around them, which are currently the left wing, anti-gun people in this country.
Yet, initially, these kids declared it to be a bipartisan crusade. Likewise, given the rapidity and degree of 'support,' there is no logical basis to presume the "influence/council" you reference to be 'ancillary' or a 'minor' factor in how the message has progressed to where it has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They treated them interchangeably, much like we are treating morph and or evolve.
We are utilizing "morph" and "evolve" as, roughly, synonymous in the context of this discussion.

The difference, in your mind, is that "evolve" indicates a more 'gradual' and 'less pronounced' change with the influence of the 'support' which descended on these kids (in a most immediate fashion) being 'minimal.'

In our minds, "morph" indicates a much greater rapidity and more significant impact involved with that 'support.'

Put another way, we both agree that the 'support' has had an impact; meaning we agree to a certain degree of suitability as synonyms. We disagree on the significance of that impact insofar as how the message has been shaped or taken shape; thus, the difference in preference between 'evolve' and 'morph' and the 'wiggle room' you are attempting to create between what are generally accepted synonyms within the context of this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Says nothing about school safety although could have been on their mind?? Maybe so.
Except that, leading up to Hogg's declaration, the discourse had been about the young people being 'slaughtered' just yards away and the younger generation dying in school shootings. In their own words, the opening context was 'school shootings,' no "maybe so" about it. Once again, bear in mind that the mental health laws and gun control were a prominent feature in the media at that time.

1/17/18 (a month prior to Parkland) - Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men

11/6/2017 (3 months prior to Parkland) - President Trump Blamed the Texas Shooting on 'Mental Health.' But He Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

In other words, in the time frame cited for the one girl who met with Debbie Wasserman Schultz having "worked on a fifty-page project about gun control for her A.P. composition-and-rhetoric class a couple of months before," the 'rhetoric' surrounding gun control involved a strong emphasis on 'mental health.' As was shown earlier, much of the early message thrown out there by the kids appears to have been simply a reflection of and sourced from the media itself. This is simply more "evidence" of the likelihood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Kaskey mentions "He has guns and I understand that having concealed weapons is good for protecting yourself. But an AR 15 is not needed to protect your house from robbers." Originally, almost immediately, they are going after the AR 15 and what is "needed" and not needed.
Hadn't the bump stock issue been an ongoing lead story in the news just prior to Parkland?

1/18/18 - Facing congressional inaction, states move to ban bump stocks


10/5/17 - Ban the 'Bump Stock' - Now is the time to act for both gun safety and also our national political health.

Again, the same time frame as before, dovetailing perfectly with the period she was conducting her 'gun control' research and writing her paper. Given that the 'rhetoric' in the media was focused on AR-15's (not to mention, as was shown earlier, the media citing an AR-15 having been used in the Parkland shooting by the night of the shooting), mental health, guns in schools, and gun control in general, it's no surprise that such would be in their minds and compose the bulk of that portion of their demands.

It might even prove useful to have a look at that "50-page paper" insofar as the bibliography and the quotes made. Remember, this was for a 'composition-and-rhetoric' class. The sources I just cited aren't obscure, local papers. They are Time, US News, The New York Times... references readily available to high school students working on a paper.

As stated, it would appear that the rhetoric coming from this 'select group' of Parkland kids is likely a reflection of the rhetoric that was in the media just prior to the shooting. It's part of why we agree that teachers and family had already 'primed the pump' before the shooting even took place. But, to claim that this 'reflection' of general, media rhetoric regarding school safety, AR-15's, mental health, etc. is largely the source of the progression ignores (or, at the very least, downplays) the immediate, prominent, and active impact of the network illustrated in this thread. It also ignores/downplays the admissions, by those students and the people/organizations themselves in terms of how that activity has been shaping their efforts.

cont'd...

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-21-2018 at 2:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-21-2018, 2:20 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 2 of 2...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Morph = massive change (dog into cat) and Evolution = less pronounced change and the dog never becomes a cat.
Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is

Cats vs dogs: in terms of evolution, are we barking up the wrong tree?

Quote:
Cats and dogs belong together, related to one another by a common ancestor. They share this ancestry with a whole suite of other animals, large and small.
A cross between a panther and a squirrel: 55-million-year-old fossil reveals shared ancestor of cats and dogs

Of course, if you go even farther back...

Ancient Ancestor Of Humans, Dogs, Cats, Llamas, Sloths, Marmots...

Which was, essentially, my point earlier. You're not going back to the 'original' message these kids put together; a message which was a mix of things, of which 'gun control' was a part. Put another way, it's not about a dog turning into a cat or vice versa. It's about a shared ancestor (the original message) and factors influencing the divergence(s) which took place from that ancestor to what we currently have in terms of their message.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Some have suggested they changed/morphed/evolved their argument from school safety to gun control. I have provided ample reference to debunk this claim.
You didn't "debunk" it so much as attempted to make a case that 'gun control' was the original message. As I've now documented, it was PART of the original message, where the preface/context was 'school safety.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
At this point right now, some of these kids are off the rails. They are absolutely empowered and emboldened by the left and the fake right in stereo.
You have expressed your distaste for Laura Ingraham in another thread; but, that does not make her claims 'fake.' Ill-advised from a PR standpoint? Probably. But, it fits a 'pattern' in regards to highlighting what you just said; a sense of entitlement with one or more of these kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Both sides are handing them a microphone.
Both sides, initially, handed them a microphone in relation to the shooting. That very quickly changed as the message being purveyed by the kids increasingly focused on broader gun control demands and more emerged about the network supporting the select group given prominence. More recently - where "recently" is a relative term given it's only been a period of roughly 9 weeks since Parkland - the conspiracy theories which inevitably pop-up with such incidents have receded to near invisibility outside of the Left-leaning media regurgitating early claims in an effort to 'demonstrate' how "off the rails" the Right is and why it shouldn't be listened to.

Were such 'attacks' ill-advised or even 'wrong?' Some of them were, absolutely. However, some of what has been labeled "attacks" were attempts to show that these kids are not what they've been presented to be, that their message and/or its 'development' (morphing/evolution) doesn't demonstrate as 'natural' a progression as is being espoused. Predictably, those behind the kids, particularly those in the media, are going to conflate the 'nutty' with those who are 'questioning' aspects of what is being presented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
All I have been after is to illustrate, gun control came immediately (done), and they believe what they are saying and want to say it (something you and I both believe is the case).
The problem is, we never said 'gun control' came 'late' to the party. We said that it was PART of the ORIGINAL platform ('documented' in your own 'evidence'), largely a reflection of media rhetoric (documented), as well as LIMITED in scope and to a specific context (documented). To repeat...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
The degree to which they have been influenced we will never be able to tell for sure.
Which is what I have said regarding this thread's "inductive" approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...but I submit they are not mouthpieces and are actually part of the apparatus. I think this thread overall has proved that with the evidence. And to your point, they have been coached, and assisted, but they were also indoctrinated long before this event...
Which is also what this thread has maintained and attempted to provide "evidence" for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
This exact thing happened after Columbine if you recall. Some of those kids (now adults) and their parents are still very vocal anti-2A, even though they are out of the public spotlight.
Which is precisely what is happening with the Florida parents as well...

4/10/18 - Parkland father urges Ohio leaders to pass gun restrictions

But, note how Democrat Senator Bill Nelson introduces the idea of 'banning' the AR-15 and AK-47 into a forum which was "focused on prevention of school violence, intervention and school safety and security."

4/18/18 - Parents of Parkland victims call for national school safety standards

As with Columbine, other kids and their parents have headed a different direction...

2/25/18 - Parkland victim's father: We need to focus on school safety, not gun control

4/18/18 - You’ve heard of David Hogg. But the right has claimed another Parkland student as its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...I agree and always have that... What I take exception with is exactly how brainwashed they are by these people...
Which is why I've engaged in this extended discourse with you versus truncating my engagement with others. You have offered discourse and, as a result, it's become clear to most readers that we actually agree on much more than we disagree. Insofar as what we disagree on, that's up to the readers to decide for themselves. It's just that, now, they have something more tangible to hang their hats on that vague allusions.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-21-2018 at 4:35 AM.. Reason: Added Link
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-21-2018, 3:59 AM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is another thing that makes me wonder about all of this. Who is allowing these kids to just get up and walk out of classes, to attend these "marches" anytime they please? Is discipline really that lax in these schools? I grew up in the 60's. And believe me, there was plenty going on then to march and whine about. Yet we had strict attendance and behavior rules in school. And there were consequences if you violated them.

We couldn't just leave anytime we felt like it. If the school ever got wind of the students walking out, we would have been greeted by male teachers at every exit. Who would have immediately turned us around, marched us right back into class. This total lack of discipline shows what's wrong in schools in this country...... And it isn't guns.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-21-2018, 6:49 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Here is another thing that makes me wonder about all of this. Who is allowing these kids to just get up and walk out of classes, to attend these "marches" anytime they please? Is discipline really that lax in these schools? I grew up in the 60's. And believe me, there was plenty going on then to march and whine about. Yet we had strict attendance and behavior rules in school. And there were consequences if you violated them.

We couldn't just leave anytime we felt like it. If the school ever got wind of the students walking out, we would have been greeted by male teachers at every exit. Who would have immediately turned us around, marched us right back into class. This total lack of discipline shows what's wrong in schools in this country...... And it isn't guns.
That was one of the first issues in the OP...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
How are these kids going about finishing their coursework for completing high school? Are they being given 'credit' toward graduation for all this political activity? If so, who is arranging and how are they justifying such 'alternative' curriculum as supplanting the required material?
Here's part of the answer...

Parkland shooting: Lawmakers say let school's students skip state tests

Quote:
Students at the Parkland high school where 17 people died in a mass shooting should not have to take state-mandated exams this semester, the Legislature decided, carving out from Florida’s testing rules an exemption for teenagers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The exemption is in a controversial education bill (HB 7055) that both the Florida House and Senate approved Monday. If the bill is signed into law by Sen. Rick Scott, students at the Broward County school could skip all state exams, including the Florida Standards Assessments, or FSA, and end-of-course exams in algebra, biology and U.S. history.

A spokesman for the Florida Department of Education said, to staff members’ knowledge, this would be the first time a public school was granted permission to avoid state tests, which are taken by students in third grade through high school.

Under the exemption, students at Stoneman Douglas could take the exams, if they wanted, but they would not be required to test. State testing began for some high school students last week and is to run through mid-May.

Stoneman Douglas’ seniors also could graduate with fewer hours of class time than usually required. Students at the school were out of class for two weeks after the Feb. 14 shooting.

And seniors who had not yet passed the two state exams needed for a diploma — the FSA 10th-grade language arts exam and the algebra 1 end-of-course exam — could earn graduate without those needed scores, the bill says.

The A-rated high school would keep that grade, issued in 2017, for 2018 since it might not have many test scores on which to calculate a new grade, the bill adds. Florida’s annual A-to-F school grades largely are determined by student scores.
It would appear that this was 'approved' by the Governor on 11 March.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-21-2018, 12:13 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No wonder these kids are so completely screwed up!
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 04-21-2018, 1:17 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 1 of 2...
Not quite 'debunked.' Remember, the kids talked of things from 'gun control' to metal detectors to mental health to...
True that. They did, and to your point, still are. Their message isn't 100% about gun control, they still do stir in the other things (seemingly for flavor at this point). Since I am sure they all darn well knew this kid was crazy insane, I am surprised they have not keyed on mental health more forcefully.

Also, you made my point for me, the dog never becomes a cat. They share an ancestor AND it took millions of years for the evolution to take place, it didn't happen suddenly. Nonetheless, we can use the words interchangeably, it is semantics we agree on.

Also, to your later points, you do point out that there are these "common ancestors" among the articles they were probably watching, and reading and being assaulted with on social media and TV prior to the tragedy. Thus, evolutionary thinking, or morphing or whatever, but all of it prior to tragedy and thus the dog and cat already existed and didn't come from a common ancestor AFTER the shooting. Although, there may have been breeding after the fact (I think we agree here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It was the media, in particular, that focused on the 'gun issue' in the reporting; but, it wasn't a matter of the kids going primarily or solely "after guns" and, in the beginning, the focus or context was on kids dying in schools, even when talking about 'gun control.'
True, guns and the NRA were an immediate target, however not the only one. Politicians were as well. "Adults" were as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You are providing the media spin in that you are conveying that they immediately went after "gun control" and school safety was an ancillary issue for them at best. As you say, you can hear it in their own words; but, you have to listen to what they are saying rather than focus on 'gun control.' Again, much of what they presented at that moment was a reflection of the media diatribe which was going on and had been in the heat surrounding the national reciprocity issue, bump stocks, etc.
In fact, in the Face the Nation interview the students don't mention "school safety" AT ALL. Not once. Yes, they mention student being killed, taking bullets, being unsafe etc, but they never mention school safety directly but they do mention gun control and gun safety directly.

They mention the AR15, they mention this all being Rubio's and Trumps fault, they mention the NRA being the ones driving this, etc, but they don't mention school safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Yes and no. You want to begin with 'gun control' being their platform instead of part of that platform. IVC's progression is more accurate...
I am willing to accept this however I don't see the evidence. And by that, I mean the words of the kids themselves. I showed their words, have watched and listened and I am hoping someone can show me this gang of kids, from the get go, changed/evolved/morphed their minds as was suggested. Start with school safety, and morph/change/evolve/mutate whatever into gun control. That is the claim that remains unproven so far.

I don't see them on the news screaming for "School safety" and then later on screaming for gun control. They went to gun control immediately, and we can all watch it, and hear their words. At the very least, they did not morph from school safety to gun control. They were both in play at a minimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
How quickly that progression happened in conjunction with known, anti-gun personalities, in that first week is something I highlighted for you earlier. Remember, initially, it wasn't just the half dozen "Parkland survivors" we're now familiar with and who continue being promoted which were being interviewed. Yet, they very quickly became almost the only ones the media would 'talk to' or allow access to the microphone.
They are polished, fit the narrative, and look good on camera. It does help, I agree with you on the fact they don't really reach out to many others. The other interviews I see on YouTube etc mention gun control and school safety and mental health, all of it, not just school safety then morphing/changing/evolving into gun control.

Also, let's remember, Hogg is a journalist (yes a student, but a journalist). He knew exactly how to get himself on camera, knows exactly what the left believed already (he studies it and practices), he's worked as a student journalist at the school and was actually kinda reporting from inside the school while it was happening. He took videos and did interviews. He was ready for this. I am sure he was already anti-gun long before this as I have been saying, he was conditioned prior to any of this.

If we accept that, at least, Hogg was conditioned prior to this tragedy, than the media didn't need to coach him much, they just needed to shove a microphone in his face and let him go off.

Also, these students were the most pissed off, which plays very well. Just look at Fox News, they are consistently outranged by something and all together miserable people. The exact same thing on MSNBC. Everyone is pissed off about something and the kids who were just sad, or had more sane things to say god sidelined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Again, even the 'gun control' portion of their message morphed from their own declaration of 'policy' - tighter background checks - to a much broader call for 'gun control' quickly as the media pounced on that portion of their message. How quickly that occurred is where you seem to be getting hung up; equating "their message" with the focus the media placed on a portion of it.
As I pointed out, they went after the AR15 immediately. Yes, tighter control as mentioned that the shooter shouldn't even have a gun and that "Americans should work for their weapons", but that the AR15 was not "needed" as well. It wasn't solely "tighter background checks" at the beginning. It included blaming the AR15 and saying it wasn't "needed". You don't need an AR15 to protect yourself from robbers or hunt a bear is what they used as an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Did it happen relatively quickly? Yes. But, that is the progression actually seen, not the one pushed by portions of the media. In fact, it was portions of the media which created the focus you now ascribe to the kids and the 'support' provided by those being listed in this thread aided in that focus; both from the media and in morphing the message being presented by the kids from 'gun control' as an 'heated' portion of their original message to virtually the sole focus of the message.
Fair enough, show me the quotes that show this, after the tragedy. I just can't find their focus solely on safer schools (IVCs suggestion), or solely on background checks and then switching to gun control. It could be there and I just can't find it easily. They certainly blamed the adults and politicians immediately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Was 'gun control' there from the 'beginning?' Yes.

Was it the only issue being addressed as to how to bring safety to the schools or, in their words, "their generation who are being slaughtered in schools?" No.
Yeah I agree, it wasn't the only issue, you're right.

So we now agree gun control was there from the beginning and it didn't change into gun control from school safety. That was my only point. Could it have in fact been both gun control AND school safety AND mental health? Sure. I'll buy that.

I'll also buy into the idea that they have sharpened their message tailored and influenced by those around them. Seems perfectly reasonable from what you have documented.

Hogg having been a "mini personality" in his own right was ready for this, and he wants this, badly. This is why he is everywhere. He practiced interviews and camera time for a long time. He was also a big fan of 60 minutes according to his parents since he was in primary school, which would lend to my assertion he (and most of the kids) were anti gun to begin with and didn't need much cajoling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We are utilizing "morph" and "evolve" as, roughly, synonymous in the context of this discussion.

The difference, in your mind, is that "evolve" indicates a more 'gradual' and 'less pronounced' change with the influence of the 'support' which descended on these kids (in a most immediate fashion) being 'minimal.'

In our minds, "morph" indicates a much greater rapidity and more significant impact involved with that 'support.'

Put another way, we both agree that the 'support' has had an impact; meaning we agree to a certain degree of suitability as synonyms. We disagree on the significance of that impact insofar as how the message has been shaped or taken shape; thus, the difference in preference between 'evolve' and 'morph' and the 'wiggle room' you are attempting to create between what are generally accepted synonyms within the context of this discussion.

Except that, leading up to Hogg's declaration, the discourse had been about the young people being 'slaughtered' just yards away and the younger generation dying in school shootings. In their own words, the opening context was 'school shootings,' no "maybe so" about it. Once again, bear in mind that the mental health laws and gun control were a prominent feature in the media at that time.
I think we probably have a case where some students were more influenced than others. Hogg, as I documented above, was a journalist and most likely needed very little help. He probably in fact was a driving force in evolving/morphing his fellow students. He didn't need the "media's" help too much as he was already bought in.

To your points about context, in interviews just after, people did worry kids being killed, slaughtered yards away as you said. But they almost invariably blame the guns reminding us no one needs an AR15. There was no "school safety" only, it was more like gun control will create school safety maybe? BUT in fairness, you have a point, the media was focussed on bump stocks and other things at that moment, that would have influenced at least Hogg for sure. But this was all BEFORE the shooting. They were conditioned already. Which is something everyone around here always complains about. What makes them think these students were any different I have no idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It might even prove useful to have a look at that "50-page paper" insofar as the bibliography and the quotes made. Remember, this was for a 'composition-and-rhetoric' class. The sources I just cited aren't obscure, local papers. They are Time, US News, The New York Times... references readily available to high school students working on a paper.
Good references, but it again makes my point that they were already conditioned long before the shooting and didn't suddenly go from wanting "school safety" to "gun control". They wanted all of it, immediately, going so far as in their first Face the Nation interview to not even mentioning school safety directly.

Now that you mention they did go to gun control immediately, and I can agree with you they did mean school safety as well (even without saying that exactly), then I think my point is made. There was no morphing of their message from school safety to gun control, it was a morphing/evolution of gun control in general (bad AR15, shooter shouldn't have had a gun etc) to really specific platforms.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-22-2018, 2:07 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 1 of 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
Also, you made my point for me, the dog never becomes a cat. They share an ancestor...
Which conveniently misses or ignores or misrepresents the very point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Put another way, it's not about a dog turning into a cat or vice versa...

It's about a shared ancestor (the original message) and factors influencing the divergence(s) which took place from that ancestor to what we currently have in terms of their message.
Coupled with something very close to false equivalency...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...it took millions of years for the evolution to take place, it didn't happen suddenly.
It's been all of 9 weeks since the Parkland shooting on 14 February. While I've previously cited the relativistic nature of the time frame vis a vis "evolve," even the the idea that it didn't happen suddenly isn't realistic in that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was almost immediately involved, the media was immediately focusing on "guns" and focusing interviews with the kids (and others), as well as reporting, etc. that direction; i.e., the same day and the next, 14 & 15 February.

Then, there's the misrepresentation of what's been said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Also, to your later points, you do point out that there are these "common ancestors" among the articles they were probably watching, and reading and being assaulted with on social media and TV prior to the tragedy. Thus, evolutionary thinking, or morphing or whatever, but all of it prior to tragedy and thus the dog and cat already existed and didn't come from a common ancestor AFTER the shooting. Although, there may have been breeding after the fact (I think we agree here).
The point regarding the pre-existing information was directly speaking to whether aspects of 'gun control' in relation to school safety was "on their mind" in that you had only allowed that, at best, such existence was "maybe so." As stated...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Given that the 'rhetoric' in the media was focused on AR-15's (not to mention, as was shown earlier, the media citing an AR-15 having been used in the Parkland shooting by the night of the shooting), mental health, guns in schools, and gun control in general, it's no surprise that such would be in their minds and compose the bulk of that portion of their demands.
(emphasis added)

cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 2:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-22-2018, 2:08 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 2 of 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
In fact, in the Face the Nation interview the students don't mention "school safety" AT ALL. Not once. Yes, they mention student being killed, taking bullets, being unsafe etc, but they never mention school safety directly but they do mention gun control and gun safety directly.
As has been, repeatedly, stated in this thread, if one wants to introduce an irrelevant and specious 'standard'...
  • they didn't use those, exact words, so I'll ignore the declared context and argue they didn't say it...
  • this is not admissible "evidence" by the rules for a court of law so it's not "evidence"...
  • using rationalization as "definition"...
  • et al.

...coupled with many of the other arguments/criticisms that have been attempting to derail, discredit, and dismiss this thread...
  • from dismissing active participants as 'boogeymen' to,
  • bad (and misleading) analogies to,
  • idealized representations of the kids which don't stand up to the barest of scrutiny to,
  • progressively altering declarations,
  • rephrasing discourse on specific topics,
  • flat out 'spin',
  • citing results as justification when the entire thread has been dedicated to what/who is contributing to the results,
  • obtuseness as 'argument' and being dismissive when 'facts' are inconvenient,
  • et al.

...then IVC was probably justified and correct in labeling much of what's been thrown against this thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
...all the straw man arguments presented along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They mention the AR15, they mention this all being Rubio's and Trumps fault, they mention the NRA being the ones driving this, etc, but they don't mention school safety.
Once again (this is getting really and truly repetitive), if you're looking for those exact words, then you are correct, you won't find them mentioning "school safety." If you look to the context which they are referencing, then safety in schools is precisely the reference point. Of course, that's without addressing another issue already cited directly to you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
How quickly that progression happened in conjunction with known, anti-gun personalities, in that first week is something I highlighted for you earlier. Remember, initially, it wasn't just the half dozen "Parkland survivors" we're now familiar with and who continue being promoted which were being interviewed. Yet, they very quickly became almost the only ones the media would 'talk to' or allow access to the microphone...
cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 2:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-22-2018, 2:09 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 3 of 5

Even before the Face the Nation interview, as I have documented, those exact, same kids had declared a much more limited 'gun control' agenda - tightening background checks - as their 'policy' when it came to 'gun control.' In the interview, even David Hogg declared...

Quote:
If you're a Republican that supports mental health care we want you out there making your voice heard because that's just as important as gun control or gun safety laws at this point because Democrats also want gun safety rules...
Then Kasky declared...

Quote:
...We don't want to take the guns away from Americans... We don't want to disarm America. We want to make America have to work for their weapons. And we have to make sure that everybody who has this kind of power in their hands has been cleared to have it. Because if Nikolas Cruz had gone through five minutes with any medical professional they would have said this person does not need an AR 15. This person needs a counselor and 17 people would not have needed graves...
Then, misrepresenting what Marco Rubio stated, Alex Wind declares...

Quote:
If you think it's too easy to get a gun to do something about it make it not easier to get a gun...
What I see so far is "mental health" is as important as gun control, proper mental health follow-up would have prevented acquisition, tighten background checks... With Kasky coming back with...

Quote:
It's not our job to tell you, Senator Rubio, how to protect us.
Which seems to be exactly what they are doing, demanding mental health be addressed and tighten background checks, while using some of the rhetoric on guns which was prevalent in the media at that point.

But, as I said, they weren't the only Parkland kids being interviewed at that point. A week following your Face the Nation piece, you see this on FOX News Sunday...

Quote:
...Delaney Tarr, a senior at the school, has been one of the most prominent student activists calling for changes to gun laws, a ban on certain weapons and improved care for the mentally ill since a shooter slaughtered 17 people at the Parkland high school on Valentine’s Day.

“We need to address the failures that have created a situation like horrible situation like this. All of the things that have failed us, all of the systems that have failed us,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I also believe we need to make it harder for people to access guns when they are not mentally stable, when they are young, when they are not in a place where they should be owning a weapon like this.”
I added the emphasis in that, once again, it was the media focusing on the 'gun control' portion when the kid, herself, stated that it was the failures in the system that needed to be addressed and she ALSO believed that mentally unstable people should not have access to firearms.

That's without even addressing what followed next in that article...

Quote:
One of the victims’ fathers, Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow, died in the shooting, spoke about the need to make change now: “The new norm has to be our kids are safe in the school. This can’t happen again, I can’t let it happen to another kid in another state.”
Uh... He too didn't say the words "school safety," but used "safe in the school." So, he didn't say "school safety" and she didn't say "school safety," specifically, so I guess the discussion wasn't about school safety - at least by the standard you are attempting to posit.

Then there's the 13 March article from the New York Post. While that piece begins by focusing on the mother of one of the children killed...

Quote:
...She’s launched a nonprofit called Make Schools Safe (MakeOurSchoolsSafe.org) to lobby for measures to increase campus security such as metal detectors, armed guards, bulletproof doors and windows, and reduced access points. Although Alhadeff respects the fight for gun control, she feels she can most readily make a difference with these initiatives...
And she's not using the phrase "school safety," so that's, obviously, not what she's talking about either as it's clearly "gun control" since she respects the fight for that...

The article then goes on to talk with some of the actual, Parkland kids...

Quote:
Abby considered homeschooling after the massacre...
Quote:
Alyson Sheehy, 18... “Gun control is the main issue for me.”

She wants the age for obtaining a firearm to be raised to 21, supports a waiting period during background checks and wants restrictions on magazine sizes.

“I don’t approve of assault weapons and don’t see them as something you need for attention,” she says...
Quote:
The ninth-grader cowered as the gunman banged on the door of her Spanish classroom... Returning to school has been difficult, but each day, it’s a little less hard... “You think it will never happen to you, and then it does. Now, when I go into a building, I think, ‘Where would I hide if it happened again?’ ”...
Quote:
The eighth-grader attends Lyons Creek Middle School in Parkland, a 15-minute drive from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but knew Alyssa as a fellow member of her soccer team... Now, she doesn’t feel safe in her own classroom and is 100 percent committed to the Make Schools Safe movement... “I want to see electronic badges to get into school with photo ID,” she says. “And the administration should look into students’ social media, as well as their personal belongings, more often under reasonable suspicion.”...
Quote:
...On the day of the shooting, Raquel, who co-captained the soccer team with Alyssa, was lucky... She has a new life direction, too. “I have a mission to make schools safer,” she says. “I never thought I’d have to have a voice and be a leader — at least at this age. We are going to be the change.”...
Well, none of them used the phrase "school safety" either. So, the message must have been 'gun control' and didn't include...

cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 2:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-22-2018, 2:10 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 4 of 5

Am I exaggerating? Evidently not...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I am willing to accept this however I don't see the evidence. And by that, I mean the words of the kids themselves... Start with school safety, and morph/change/evolve/mutate whatever into gun control. That is the claim that remains unproven so far... I don't see them on the news screaming for "School safety" and then later on screaming for gun control. They went to gun control immediately, and we can all watch it, and hear their words. At the very least, they did not morph from school safety to gun control. They were both in play at a minimum.
As was ALSO addressed to you, specifically...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Again, even the 'gun control' portion of their message morphed from their own declaration of 'policy' - tighter background checks - to a much broader call for 'gun control' quickly as the media pounced on that portion of their message. How quickly that occurred is where you seem to be getting hung up; equating "their message" with the focus the media placed on a portion of it...

The problem is, we never said 'gun control' came 'late' to the party. We said that it was PART of the ORIGINAL platform ('documented' in your own 'evidence'), largely a reflection of media rhetoric (documented), as well as LIMITED in scope and to a specific context (documented).
What is particularly frustrating is you acknowledge the actual point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
It does help, I agree with you on the fact they don't really reach out to many others. The other interviews I see on YouTube etc mention gun control and school safety and mental health, all of it...
But, you then launch into a defense of your own position by citing one of the most prominent among those still being pushed by the network highlighted in this thread and declaring that since the others we see in the Face the Nation interview were upset they didn't need much coaching - DESPITE - this thread having documented the kids themselves talking about the training they've received, the organizational aid, the...

So, you're argument is, thus, 'proven.' Huh?

Once again you declare...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
It wasn't solely "tighter background checks" at the beginning. It included blaming the AR15 and saying it wasn't "needed".
And, once again, I remind you that the Face the Nation interview WAS NOT THE BEGINNING. Even at that, I've shown that contemporaneous to that interview, other students were also talking about more limited 'gun control' and mental health as part of and in conjunction with school safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Fair enough, show me the quotes that show this, after the tragedy. I just can't find their focus solely on safer schools (IVCs suggestion), or solely on background checks and then switching to gun control...
Obtuseness and misrepresentation, again???

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."
You then, again, misrepresent, creating a straw man...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
So we now agree gun control was there from the beginning and it didn't change into gun control from school safety. That was my only point.
We never disagreed about 'gun control' being a part of their rhetoric...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
The problem is, we never said 'gun control' came 'late' to the party. We said that it was PART of the ORIGINAL platform ('documented' in your own 'evidence'), largely a reflection of media rhetoric (documented), as well as LIMITED in scope and to a specific context (documented).
I guess, to 'save face' in that it has been your overriding contention that 'gun control' has always been their agenda; though you've been dragged, reluctantly and at considerable effort to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Could it have in fact been both gun control AND school safety AND mental health? Sure. I'll buy that... I'll also buy into the idea that they have sharpened their message tailored and influenced by those around them. Seems perfectly reasonable from what you have documented.
I'm glad you'll buy that. I mean, even David Hogg said it initially...

Quote:
If you're a Republican that supports mental health care we want you out there making your voice heard because that's just as important as gun control or gun safety laws at this point because Democrats also want gun safety rules...
cont'd.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 2:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-22-2018, 2:12 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Part 5 of 5

Yet, you then return to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...which would lend to my assertion he (and most of the kids) were anti gun to begin with and didn't need much cajoling.
As I've already shown, "most of the kids" weren't anti-gun. Even Kasky, the one sitting in front of Hogg in the Face the Nation interview you base so much of your argument upon, stated in that interview...

Quote:
...We don't want to take the guns away from Americans... We don't want to disarm America. We want to make America have to work for their weapons. And we have to make sure that everybody who has this kind of power in their hands has been cleared to have it...
Wait. What was their self-declared 'policy' prior to the interview? 'Tighter background checks?' He's stating that they want to make sure people who own guns have "been cleared to have it." Been cleared and tighter background checks would seem to be synonymous; but, let's not go down that road again.

So, he's saying he doesn't see a need for AR-15's, but where does Kasky declare they need to be banned and confiscated in that piece?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I think we probably have a case where some students were more influenced than others. Hogg, as I documented above, was a journalist...
Correction. As you declared above. You provided no 'documentation' of any kind. (Which has been another, ongoing theme. You 'reference' things, but provide no links or any other 'documentation.' Even I provided the Face the Nation interview, both the embedded YouTube video and the link in these latest posts to the video/transcript, after you referred to it, so readers would have that point of reference.)

However, I will stipulate that Hogg was a 'student journalist.' From 16 February...

Florida shooting: Student journalist interviews classmates about gun control while school is attacked

Quote:
“The only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others,” he continued. “As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.”
I don't even want to deal with the 'controversy' that arose, at one point, over that...



Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
To your points about context... There was no "school safety" only, it was more like gun control will create school safety maybe?
That straw man has already been dealt with...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
The problem is, we never said 'gun control' came 'late' to the party. We said that it was PART of the ORIGINAL platform ('documented' in your own 'evidence'), largely a reflection of media rhetoric (documented), as well as LIMITED in scope and to a specific context (documented).
Moving on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
They were conditioned already. Which is something everyone around here always complains about. What makes them think these students were any different I have no idea.
Ummm... That ties in with another of your declarations...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
...they started off with screaming for gun control.
Yet, as has been, repeatedly, shown through documentation, they did not 'start off' by 'screaming' for 'gun control.' The actual 'gun control' they were initially soliciting, even in the Face the Nation interview, was limited.

Additionally, as you've been told previously...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
What we're saying is that the shooting was, in all probability, 'happenstance.' But, given the proclivities/connections of the teachers and the parents of some of the kids in this district (which is highly suggestive of the 'education' the students were receiving in school and at home, 'a primer' if you will), the funding, organization, and training these kids are receiving in shaping 'the message' is NOT coincidental or a 'natural evolution.'...

As just noted, they certainly received a 'primer' in their education and at home...

It's part of why we agree that teachers and family had already 'primed the pump' before the shooting even took place...
So, yet another straw man. Why? We've never said they weren't 'primed' beforehand. I'm even the one which pointed, in this thread, to the one girl's 50-page paper on gun control for her AP composition and rhetoric course. So? Who are "they" that have been declaring otherwise in this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
Now that you mention they did go to gun control immediately, and I can agree with you they did mean school safety as well (even without saying that exactly), then I think my point is made. There was no morphing of their message from school safety to gun control, it was a morphing/evolution of gun control in general (bad AR15, shooter shouldn't have had a gun etc) to really specific platforms.
Another straw man to 'save face?' Now that I 'mention'...?!?! We've been talking about it all the way along.

You can 'graciously agree' that they did mean school safety??? Give me a break.

As I said, all you appear to have left is recalcitrance; i.e., an obstinately uncooperative attitude. Which, frankly, is consistent with what I observed about your declarations previously...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
But, as you've maintained, on several occasions, your druthers would be a 'different conversation' when it comes to these kids. As I just said, we 'get that,' but that's a different thread, with a different context, a different premise, and different standards than this one.
To your credit, such would also be consistent with what you've claimed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I am mostly consistent with my thoughts. I find I don't have to change my mind often if I am consistent but have to change it a lot if I am inconsistent.
So, as I've offered, several times now, if you are desirous of a different conversation, you should start your own thread and have that conversation; leaving us to have the type of conversation we've been having. As I said, start that thread and we can have at. Unfortunately, pertaining to this thread, it appears you are no longer offering 'discourse.'

Something which is a bit perplexing in that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause
Rootuser will make you work for it, but he is willing to concede when a good point is made...
What you appear to be offering at this point is distraction and derailment through ignoring, misrepresentation, dismissing, feigned obtuseness, straw men, and reluctant, backhanded concessions which you, then, continue to argue against.

That's not making someone 'work for it.' Neither is it discourse.

While I appreciate that, to a point, you've been drawing "more evidence" from me which further illustrates the point of the thread, we've now gone beyond that. Frustratingly, each time I post "new" information, such as answering how the students appear to be 'missing' so much in terms of scholastic requirements/curriculum without 'penalty,' or what IVC declared...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Thank you for taking time to write this great summary. It addresses point by point what's been said in this thread and exposes all the straw man arguments presented along the way.
...you leap in with more, obfuscation, requiring a protracted response to clarify the misrepresentations, straw men, etc. and reply.

To such, one could reasonably reply that were I to "let it go" and keep moving on as seems appropriate, such information would not be so readily or, at least, completely 'buried.' That's true. To a point. But, since I cannot stop you from continuing in your attempts to derail, obfuscate, or distract this thread, I can at least curtail my involvement in any, further attempts you make to 'shift the conversation' in this thread.

Let us know if you decide to begin your own thread so that we may partake in the type of conversation you are more desirous of. It should be interesting. Meanwhile, we'll continue with this one as is deemed appropriate.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 2:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-22-2018, 12:17 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 1 of 5



Which conveniently misses or ignores or misrepresents the very point...



Coupled with something very close to false equivalency...



It's been all of 9 weeks since the Parkland shooting on 14 February. While I've previously cited the relativistic nature of the time frame vis a vis "evolve," even the the idea that it didn't happen suddenly isn't realistic in that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was almost immediately involved, the media was immediately focusing on "guns" and focusing interviews with the kids (and others), as well as reporting, etc. that direction; i.e., the same day and the next, 14 & 15 February.

Then, there's the misrepresentation of what's been said...



The point regarding the pre-existing information was directly speaking to whether aspects of 'gun control' in relation to school safety was "on their mind" in that you had only allowed that, at best, such existence was "maybe so." As stated...



(emphasis added)

cont'd.
I agree with what you said here you didn't say the dog became a cat, I get that. I say "maybe so" because unless they admit it, we'll never really know for sure. But I think it's reasonable to think guns were on their mind overall, in particular with Las Vegas (which they have brought up) and other mass casualty events they have grown up with in their lifetime. They don't live in a bubble. They knew darn well who the NRA was (and were conditioned to pre-hate), they knew the AR15 (It's usage in Las Vegas), and they knew their positions on mental health (the kid was nuts). All of this came out immediately.

And yes they were swooped in on by the media and singled out because of their looks, candor, demeanor etc.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-22-2018, 12:48 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Part 5 of 5

Yet, you then return to...



As I've already shown, "most of the kids" weren't anti-gun. Even Kasky, the one sitting in front of Hogg in the Face the Nation interview you base so much of your argument upon, stated in that interview...



Wait. What was their self-declared 'policy' prior to the interview? 'Tighter background checks?' He's stating that they want to make sure people who own guns have "been cleared to have it." Been cleared and tighter background checks would seem to be synonymous; but, let's not go down that road again.

So, he's saying he doesn't see a need for AR-15's, but where does Kasky declare they need to be banned and confiscated in that piece?



Correction. As you declared above. You provided no 'documentation' of any kind. (Which has been another, ongoing theme. You 'reference' things, but provide no links or any other 'documentation.' Even I provided the Face the Nation interview, both the embedded YouTube video and the link in these latest posts to the video/transcript, after you referred to it, so readers would have that point of reference.)

However, I will stipulate that Hogg was a 'student journalist.' From 16 February...

Florida shooting: Student journalist interviews classmates about gun control while school is attacked



I don't even want to deal with the 'controversy' that arose, at one point, over that...





That straw man has already been dealt with...





Moving on...



Ummm... That ties in with another of your declarations...



Yet, as has been, repeatedly, shown through documentation, they did not 'start off' by 'screaming' for 'gun control.' The actual 'gun control' they were initially soliciting, even in the Face the Nation interview, was limited.

Additionally, as you've been told previously...



So, yet another straw man. Why? We've never said they weren't 'primed' beforehand. I'm even the one which pointed, in this thread, to the one girl's 50-page paper on gun control for her AP composition and rhetoric course. So? Who are "they" that have been declaring otherwise in this thread?



Another straw man to 'save face?' Now that I 'mention'...?!?! We've been talking about it all the way along.

You can 'graciously agree' that they did mean school safety??? Give me a break.

As I said, all you appear to have left is recalcitrance; i.e., an obstinately uncooperative attitude. Which, frankly, is consistent with what I observed about your declarations previously...



To your credit, such would also be consistent with what you've claimed...



So, as I've offered, several times now, if you are desirous of a different conversation, you should start your own thread and have that conversation; leaving us to have the type of conversation we've been having. As I said, start that thread and we can have at. Unfortunately, pertaining to this thread, it appears you are no longer offering 'discourse.'

Something which is a bit perplexing in that...



What you appear to be offering at this point is distraction and derailment through ignoring, misrepresentation, dismissing, feigned obtuseness, straw men, and reluctant, backhanded concessions which you, then, continue to argue against.

That's not making someone 'work for it.' Neither is it discourse.

While I appreciate that, to a point, you've been drawing "more evidence" from me which further illustrates the point of the thread, we've now gone beyond that. Frustratingly, each time I post "new" information, such as answering how the students appear to be 'missing' so much in terms of scholastic requirements/curriculum without 'penalty,' or what IVC declared...



...you leap in with more, obfuscation, requiring a protracted response to clarify the misrepresentations, straw men, etc. and reply.

To such, one could reasonably reply that were I to "let it go" and keep moving on as seems appropriate, such information would not be so readily or, at least, completely 'buried.' That's true. To a point. But, since I cannot stop you from continuing in your attempts to derail, obfuscate, or distract this thread, I can at least curtail my involvement in any, further attempts you make to 'shift the conversation' in this thread.

Let us know if you decide to begin your own thread so that we may partake in the type of conversation you are more desirous of. It should be interesting. Meanwhile, we'll continue with this one as is deemed appropriate.
I do not need to save face nor graciously agree to anything. No need to respond to tone, or dance around ad hominem style arguments, you've handled yourself admirably and respectably. I agree with you because you made a good point, that's it. Based on the merits of your argument.

It was said they "morphed from generic 'we don't want school shootings'". It did not start there, as I have pointed out again and again. It didn't morph from that to "banning guns will minimize school shootings". It started at gun control (presumably to minimize school shootings even though that is not what they said, I think it's what they meant) and then became the specifics we hear today.

The premise seems to be that it started off with idea that the kids just didn't want school shootings and the media somehow influenced them into calling out for gun control as a solution AFTER the fact. These kids are so assaulted with anti-gun media constantly I propose they were already anti-gun to begin with and the media just gave them a semaphore.

I have proven with their own words, they called out for gun control immediately. Including telling all of us what guns we need and how we should "work for our weapons". That list got refined, and did get specific and those specifics were probably driven by those around them. Other students, the media, the Debbie whatever her name is, and those types.

P.S. As has been mentioned, these kids being anti-gun to begin with are one of the reasons (among others) that they get press too, it seems the pro-gun ones don't get any probably because they might not be as "camera worthy" and conveniently they don't uphold the anti-gun message.

Last edited by rootuser; 04-22-2018 at 12:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 04-22-2018, 10:09 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well... There ya go...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
As has been mentioned, these kids being anti-gun to begin with are one of the reasons (among others) that they get press too, it seems the pro-gun ones don't get any probably because they might not be as "camera worthy" and conveniently they don't uphold the anti-gun message.
At least the point of the entire thread has been acknowledged; i.e., how the list of people and organizations being brought to light in this thread have taken the original message...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Their message morphed from generic "we don't want school shootings" to "banning guns will minimize school shootings" to "banning very specific and detailed gun features that we have no idea what they mean or do will minimize school shootings" to "here is a comprehensive list of gun laws that will minimize school shootings."
...which, by definition, included narrowly constrained aspects of 'gun control' (thus, the words 'school shootings') among its proposals, and changed it.

That's been the point of the whole exercise. What were the questions posed in the OP of the thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...While such 'conspiracy theory' may be a bit of a stretch, it's certain that they are being used as a 'beard' (of sorts) for the anti-civil rights crowd. Questions that aren't being answered include:
  • How are these events being organized as such arrangements are, generally speaking, 'beyond' the wherewithal of 17 and 18 year old's?
  • How are these kids being transported to the various meetings with the President, protests, Dubai, et al.? Certainly, this kind of 'constant' travel is beyond the means of most, average Americans.
  • How are these kids going about finishing their coursework for completing high school? Are they being given 'credit' toward graduation for all this political activity? If so, who is arranging and how are they justifying such 'alternative' curriculum as supplanting the required material? (Bear in mind that the Hogg kid has, evidently, been rejected by UC San Diego and UCLA for admission.)

There are more questions and I don't pretend to have the answers...

This brings to mind a couple more questions...

If those ostensibly being ignored by the media are so important, what about all those kids from Parkland who support the 2nd Amendment who are not seeing much, if any, media attention? Certainly, they represent various races as well.

If these kids are too young and immature to own, use, and have access to firearms, how are they mature and experienced enough to be made the moral leaders or voice of America's conscience when it comes to laws, regulations, and policies on firearms? (Bear in mind that simply saying that they are old enough to know they don't want to be shot is not an answer to the question.)
So, we've documented (not simply asserted), with myriad links, that a network of people/groups have committed, literally, millions of dollars in money, organization, training, etc., including even State legislation which, for the first time in Florida history, exempts them from the standard curriculum/graduation requirements, at primarily (though not always 'exclusively') a very SELECT few Parkland kids; morphing the original message the larger group was presenting for 'school safety' or 'safety from school shootings' into a near exclusive focus on gun control as the only message the vast majority hear about in the media.

In the mean time, those elements among the Parkland students and their parents who are pro-gun, focused on other points of the original message (fences, electronic badges, mental health, more limited gun control aspects) are rarely seen/heard. Worse, they are actively avoided by those who control the bigger microphones.

As a Note... If highlighting the tactics (ignoring established facts, misrepresentation, dismissiveness, spin, feigned obtuseness, repeated straw men, and reluctant, backhanded concessions which are then argued against by those making the concession) used by critics of this thread is now considered ad hominem, i.e., directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, and, therefore, uncouth, unwarranted, and 'bad form,' then we might be in real trouble with regard to the larger conversations being had in relation to the rights recognized and protected by the 2nd Amendment as it is those very tactics which are being used against us in that 'conversation.'

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-22-2018 at 10:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 04-23-2018, 10:54 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,020
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's been the point of the whole exercise. What were the questions posed in the OP of the thread?

So, we've documented (not simply asserted), with myriad links, that a network of people/groups have committed, literally, millions of dollars in money, organization, training, etc., including even State legislation which, for the first time in Florida history, exempts them from the standard curriculum/graduation requirements, at primarily (though not always 'exclusively') a very SELECT few Parkland kids; morphing the original message the larger group was presenting for 'school safety' or 'safety from school shootings' into a near exclusive focus on gun control as the only message the vast majority hear about in the media.

In the mean time, those elements among the Parkland students and their parents who are pro-gun, focused on other points of the original message (fences, electronic badges, mental health, more limited gun control aspects) are rarely seen/heard. Worse, they are actively avoided by those who control the bigger microphones.

As a Note... If highlighting the tactics (ignoring established facts, misrepresentation, dismissiveness, spin, feigned obtuseness, repeated straw men, and reluctant, backhanded concessions which are then argued against by those making the concession) used by critics of this thread is now considered ad hominem, i.e., directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining, and, therefore, uncouth, unwarranted, and 'bad form,' then we might be in real trouble with regard to the larger conversations being had in relation to the rights recognized and protected by the 2nd Amendment as it is those very tactics which are being used against us in that 'conversation.'
"Backhanded concessions", "save face", accusations of feigning anything etc are all just attacks. Can't refute the point? Resort to responding to tone (as mentioned) and dancing around ad hominem attacks and almost going further as to by writing that some one is obstuse (Name-calling) are all just fallacies and certainly not enlightening. In the larger context, it helps nothing and only serves to empower our opposition. Two sides calling each other jackwagons really isn't going to get us anywhere. And thus, our rights erode, because we are in the minority, and will always be shouted down by the majority in the long run, exactly as we are seeing now in statehouses across the country.

There was a few videos from inside the school at the time of the shooting and a young student says "we need more gun control in our country". Not "we need safer schools" but we can assume it was in the context of less shootings at least, but not necessarily school shootings exclusively. I believe the video was taken and posted by Hogg IIRC. This one seems edited:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5w5dxx8mGo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:01 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.