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
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 310
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: 2,284
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: 2,936
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: 13,563
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: 13,563
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: 2,936
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: 13,563
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: 46
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: 2,936
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: 3,884
iTrader: 11 / 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
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 310
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
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 310
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
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 310
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
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 2:38 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.