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
  #81  
Old 04-11-2018, 2:06 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The irony of this likely escapes you...

I happen to be a hard scientist

Back to the topic. Do you believe kids in CA calling for AWB and magazine limits qualifies as better than idiotic?
Irony is a literary conceit of contrasts, e.g. the young sailors in the U-Boat were mere pups (the vicious wolf pack is contrasted with the image of the helpless pup). Scientists conduct peer reviewed research, citing to authority. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...deofscience_04 None of what you have written contains any meaningful insight or support of any kind, which one would expect from a person with education.

The last sentence, "Do you believe kids in CA calling for AWB and magazine limits qualifies as better than idiotic?" is grammatically incorrect and is incoherent.

There is no substitute for formal, critical inquiry and proof reading.

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-11-2018 at 2:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-11-2018, 4:01 PM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The guy is loony.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-11-2018, 6:14 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post
The guy is loony.
Despite his blathering, he has yet to respond to IVC's factual
observations.

Sarabellum couldn't address IVC's points, so he deflected to a Weak Sauce
Ad Hominem attack on IVC's supposed level of education.

If that was the way we determined who prevails in a debate, then people
like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs, to name just a few, would be
just another face in a crowd of unknowns.

Instead, they are people who "put a dent in the universe", running huge
corporations that changed the world. All without a College Degree.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-11-2018, 8:23 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Despite his blathering, he has yet to respond to IVC's factual observations.
The notion that "someone is behind" the youth demonstrations has zero social significance. This entire thread is dedicated to speculating about "someone is behind" something. None of that speculating advances a discourse in favor of armament.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-11-2018, 8:49 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post
The guy is loony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobleCause
Despite his blathering...
I suppose, from a certain perspective, such claims could be made. However, I think there's a certain element, even on "our side" which refuses to acknowledge the realities involved with these Parkland kids. His statement kinda sums it up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
This nonsense of "who is behind" the youth display is an admission of illiteracy and an exercise in vicarious living.

There is no substitute for a formal education.
Instead of recognizing what "evidence"... documented "evidence"... has been provided, he declares all such to be speculation since none of it is presented in a manner consistent with the only source material he would, apparently, recognize...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
If you had any meaningful insight you would support it with citation to a book (that you read and own) or to a .edu/.gov source.
He then launches into generic quotations regarding protests which bear little or no relevance to the subject of the thread, then declares any counter argument to be based in a lack of education and illiteracy.

My perception is that he's simply in denial. All he needs to do is read The Federalist article I linked to earlier. While this thread provides even more detail, that article directly addresses many of his supposed criticisms...

Quote:
...That’s a little more work than posting an announcement on Facebook. And that’s organizing. It’s not magical kids, and it’s not George Soros sprinkling money around. It’s hard work by people who’ve trained to do it.

Now that the organizations are more open about their involvement, at some point the Parkland kids will go into the background a bit in media exposure, the same way Deray and Linda Sarsour did. That’s part of how organizing fame works these days: Two Minutes’ Heroes, in frequent rotation. But the problem remains: until the press covers organizing campaigns accurately, organizers will be able to punch above their weight politically even if they don’t win every election.

In his excellent book “Hegemony How-To,” leftist organizer Jonathan Smucker wrote, “Power tends to appear magical to those who have less of it, and mechanical to those who are accustomed to wielding it instrumentally.” Or, for that matter, to even seeing it instrumentally.

For two weeks, journalists treated power as if it were magical. It’s not. It’s mechanical. The people organizing the response to Parkland, and a host of other causes, know that. So should you.
That's what this thread has been doing... Highlighting the specifics as to who and what organizations have actually been doing "the hard work" they've been "trained" to do in terms of organizing and promoting the Parkland kids. In doing so, it's also shown that the original message of the kids - safety in schools - has been morphed into something substantively different; causing the kids' message, not to mention most of the actual survivors, to recede in terms of media attention.

Now that there's only a couple/three of the original kids (Hogg, Gonzalez, and Corin in particular) who are continuing to be spotlighted in the media, as I pointed out on the Hogg/Ingraham - Boycott thread, others are being left askance as to why their voices aren't being heard...

Black Parkland Students Want Peers To ‘Share The Mic’

Quote:
Black students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are calling out the March for Our Lives movement ― at once commending the teens leading it for their efforts to be inclusive and pushing them to go a step further by sharing the spotlight with their own black peers.

“We’re saying you don’t see much of us at the forefront,” 17-year-old junior Mei-Ling Ho-Shing, who is black, told HuffPost earlier this week.

Ho-Shing’s classmates at the front of the student-led anti-gun violence movement, like David Hogg and Emma González, have been rightfully celebrated for their moves toward inclusivity...

Still, some black students at the school in Parkland, Florida, where a gunman killed 17 people in February, contend that the student activists haven’t quite practiced this inclusivity in their own backyards, and have not gone far enough to include black teens from their own school, and nearby areas where gun violence is more prevalent, at the center of their movement...

“David Hogg, we’re proud of him, but he mentioned he was going to use his white privilege to be the voice for black communities, and we’re kind of sitting there like, ‘You know there are Stoneman Douglas students who could be that voice,’” Ho-Shing told HuffPost...
In fact, it's something that Kyle Kashuv has highlighted...

It’s only fair! Kyle Kashuv has a hot scoop for CNN — will they cover it?

His point is a valid one. CNN is covering that Hogg is going to take a year off from 'school' to 'devote his time to political causes' (plural). Meanwhile, it takes an outfit such as Twitchy to highlight Kashuv's complaint on Twitter...

Quote:
I'll be staying in MSD next year so I can complete high-school. Write it up, CNN?
In fact, this guy's last post demonstrates the level of denial he's in, completely dismissing my response to his complaint, not to mention my earlier statements...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
The notion that "someone is behind" the youth demonstrations has zero social significance. This entire thread is dedicated to speculating about "someone is behind" something. None of that speculating advances a discourse in favor of armament.
...and ascribing his own, nonsensical "speculation" accusations as the 'motive' behind this thread in an effort to justify what he'd rather speak to.

So, whatever validity your accusations might have, it's clear that he wants to talk about something other than the topic of this thread. Fine. That is why he is free to start his own thread on his preferred topic; one I'd likely contribute to in the right circumstances and one both of you probably would as well.

There are many ways to 'fight.' One is to pursue 'discourse in favor of armament.' Another is to challenge the truth of the premise upon which the argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread. As I've said, it's not about whether "we" already know or suspect what's been and is being demonstrated/documented in this thread and "they" won't be persuaded. It's about those 'in the middle' who can be and, election demographics being what they are, must be persuaded.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-11-2018 at 8:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-11-2018, 8:59 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
His statement kinda sums it up...
Instead of recognizing what "evidence"... documented "evidence"... has been provided, he declares all such to be speculation since none of it is presented in a manner consistent with the only source material he would, apparently, recognize...

All he needs to do is read The Federalist article I linked to earlier. While this thread provides even more detail, that article directly addresses many of his supposed criticisms...
The articles to which you link are not evidence of anything; they are hearsay arguments. Even if you could demonstrate that "someone is behind" something (the premise is that the youth's demand for disarmament should be dismissed because it is funded by an individual or organization), that fact has no social, historical, or political significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

There are many ways to 'fight.' One is to pursue 'discourse in favor of armament.' Another is to challenge the truth of the premise upon which the argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread. As I've said, it's not about whether "we" already know or suspect what's been and is being demonstrated/documented in this thread and "they" won't be persuaded. It's about those 'in the middle' who can be and, election demographics being what they are, must be persuaded.
Therein lies your mistaken premise. The youths offer argument and nothing for the truth of the matter asserted. That argument is that disarmament should be pursued as a public policy.

Even if the youth made a factual assertion, identifying a sponsor would not rebut the factual assertion. Rather, evidence would rebut the factual assertion, if any. To impugn the character of the movement based on the donor is ineffective, as it is not relevant to the fact claimed or the demand for disarmament. The demand for disarmament is countered with principled arguments and social evidence.

The sole part that is correct in your assertion, which supports what I explained, is persuading the electorate. To do that, as already explained, one must present a counter-discourse. The "someone is behind" something notion does not advance a counter-discourse in favor of armament.

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-11-2018 at 9:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-11-2018, 9:10 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
The articles to which you link are not evidence of anything; they are hearsay arguments. Even if you could demonstrate that "someone is behind" something (the premise is that the youth's demand for disarmament should be dismissed because it is funded by an individual or organization), that fact has no social, historical, or political significance.
They are not hearsay. They are admissions of fact and document the involvement of those operating on the kids' behalf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
Therein lies your mistaken premise. The youths offer argument and nothing for the truth of the matter asserted. That argument is that disarmament should be pursued as a public policy.
Which is, essentially, the same as what I said...

Challenging the truth of the premise upon which the argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
The sole part that is correct in your assertion, which supports what I explained, is persuading the electorate. To do that, as already explained, one must present a counter-discourse. The "someone is behind" something notion does not advance a counter-discourse in favor of armament.
Which is why I alluded to the idea that you are free to start your own thread in what you see as an alternative to 'advance a counter-discourse in favor of armament.'

Both approaches are valid. Both approaches seek similar goals. They simply address different points on the continuum of the discourse. Neither should, however, attempt to derail or distract from the substance of the other as that only becomes self-defeating. It's something often referred to as 'synergy' in the argument; i.e., show the lack of truth (or substance) in their argument, while advancing your own, counter-narrative.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-11-2018 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-11-2018, 9:17 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
They are not hearsay.

Challenging the truth of the premise upon which the argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread.

Which is why I alluded to the idea that you are free to start your own thread in what you see as an alternative to 'advance a counter-discourse in favor of armament.'
The online articles are hearsay by definition as nothing in them can be substantiated. "Challenging the truth" is nothing that is occurring in this thread, since the demonstrations are display. The students' display is argument, without any factual assertion that can be disproven. We don't like guns; ban guns is argument that cannot be disproven.

Worse, you cannot disprove anything with speculation. "Someone is behind" something is speculation.

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-11-2018 at 9:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-11-2018, 11:37 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
The online articles are hearsay by definition as nothing in them can be substantiated. "Challenging the truth" is nothing that is occurring in this thread, since the demonstrations are display. The students' display is argument, without any factual assertion that can be disproven. We don't like guns; ban guns is argument that cannot be disproven.

Worse, you cannot disprove anything with speculation. "Someone is behind" something is speculation.
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. (Something which we've already done, to a limited degree.) But, that would seem to do a disservice to those who have been following this thread, with over 4,100 views thus far, for nearly 3 weeks.

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.

One type of information flows from 'discourse in favor of armament.' Another type of information is available from a challenge to the truth of the premise upon which an opponent's argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread.

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. (Or, worse, a moderator deletes some or all of the information due to obdurate behavior from those who'd rather engage in a different or different type of discussion.)

In that vein, I point readers who are interested, back to the latest entry from nearly the bottom of page 2 of this thread, of a community activist organization which, by one of the more visible students own account, trained and advised the Parkland Kids in terms of their approach to altering public policy.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-11-2018 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 04-12-2018, 12:14 AM
Ugly Hombre Ugly Hombre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Banned from O.T. Territory.
Posts: 1,104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeor...96d#.tdZ4ZbRmB

"***Barely two weeks ago, the student survivors sat in a circle in the living room of one of their parents' homes, planning a trip to Tallahassee to meet with lawmakers and handling nitty-gritty matters like which media outlets to talk to.

Since then, major players and organizations — including Everytown, Giffords, Move On, and Women’s March LA — told BuzzFeed News they are helping with logistics, strategy, and planning for next month’s March for Our Lives rally and beyond. Much of the specific resources the groups are providing to the Parkland students remains unclear — as is the full list of supporting organizations — but there are broad outlines.

Giffords, an organization started by former US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that fights gun violence, is working with Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to plan the main march on Washington — as well as sister rallies across the country.

With the event scheduled to happen in less than a month, a spokesperson for Giffords told BuzzFeed News the organization "will be lending support in any way the students need, especially helping to operationalize these marches from logistics to programming."***

**"MoveOn said it will encourage its millions of members to follow and promote the March for Our Lives movement on social media and attend the rally next month. The group said it had offered support in organizing logistics such as security and portable toilets, but it is unclear if the students have taken them up on their offer.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, which has not directly been in touch with the students, said it has been in contact and offered support to Giffords, which is spearheading the national coalition of groups working with March for Our Lives.

The spokesperson also said the group is "teaching and hosting trainings” for young activists across the US “to keep momentum going so they don't get burned out."

Democratic US Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Broward County resident for nearly 30 years, told BuzzFeed News she has been in touch with students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas since the day after the shooting, helping them connect to state legislators and plan their trip to Tallahassee last week.

Wasserman Schultz said that because this is the first time many of the students have interacted with legislators, she advised them on communication strategy. She also said she been in contact with Mark Kelly — Gabrielle Giffords' husband and one of the founders of the Giffords foundation."**

This is a Prog/Commie New Democrat led, financed, organized, and directed mass anti- Constitution movement, the Parkland students are being used as props.

The Communists are past masters at getting the "youth" to work towards enslaving themselves.

They may regret it in the future just like the 'Kids" who enabled and helped the Bolsheviks destroy Russia in 1917.

Last edited by Ugly Hombre; 04-12-2018 at 12:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 04-12-2018, 8:51 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
None of what you have written contains any meaningful insight or support of any kind, which one would expect from a person with education.
Organized marches in CA called for AWB and magazine capacity limits. We already have AWB and magazine capacity limits in CA. The support for the above is in the photos and recordings of the events, and in the CA penal code. If you observed something different, please elaborate.

Organized marches elsewhere were supported and advertised by the TV personalities. The funding was in part provided by prominent actors who contributed significant amount of money. The support for the latter is readily available in recorded archives and financial documents.

What part of the above do you deny?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 04-12-2018, 8:54 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
There is no substitute for formal, critical inquiry and proof reading.
Yet again, you had to edit your post.

You are trying too hard and still not coming across the way you wish to appear.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 04-12-2018, 9:15 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
... is grammatically incorrect and is incoherent.
Is not!
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 04-12-2018, 6:45 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Organized marches elsewhere were supported and advertised by the TV personalities. The funding was in part provided by prominent actors who contributed significant amount of money. The support for the latter is readily available in recorded archives and financial documents.
↑ This is argument. Even if those assertions ("somebody" is behind something) could be supported with evidence in the form of a tangible document, they lack any social, political, or historical significance. A group of youth or groups of youths articulated a message with which you disagree (summarized as we don't like guns; ban guns). Whether or not someone paid money for organizing does not confront the content of the message. To the contrary, the "somebody is behind something" notion is deflection.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 04-12-2018, 7:16 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
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.

One type of information flows from 'discourse in favor of armament.' Another type of information is available from a challenge to the truth of the premise upon which an opponent's argument(s) against you is/are based; something we're doing with this thread.

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
Speculation, conjecture, and distortion are what some in the 2nd Amendment community accuse the disarmament proponents of doing. The notion that "someone is behind something" is speculation, conjecture, and distortion.

Personal opinion is not the equivalent of critical inquiry and informed decisions supported by evidence and authority. In the absence of evidence and authority, personal opinion has no value. Guns are bad; ban guns is a statement of opinion not a factual assertion, which can be impeached. Guns are bad; ban guns cannot not be confronted as argument by claiming "someone is behind something," because it fails to address the propriety of the demand for the ban. Thus, "someone is behind something" is irrelevant.

"I have a right to guns, because it's my right to have a gun" is also an opinion and circular logic. Social policy and the rules formalizing a social policy, such as broad access to arms, must be supported with principled reasons, social evidence, and historical evidence, not opinion, e.g. the Kozinski dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (2003):
he majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
There is no comparison between Judge Kozinki's principled explanation for a social policy of broad access to arms and the foolish notion that "someone is behind something," e.g. Ugly Hombre, "This is a Prog/Commie New Democrat led, financed, organized, and directed mass anti- Constitution movement, the Parkland students are being used as props."

"Someone is behind something" is distraction. You invited comments, including inconvenient ones.

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-12-2018 at 7:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 04-12-2018, 7:36 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
"Someone is behind something" is distraction. You invited comment.
I invited comment, which, by nature, would include some discourse.

What you have been proffering is dismissive and insulting narrative based on an illusory and non-relevant (not to mention unattainable in this venue) definition of "evidence" and an overwhelming desire for a "different conversation." Not to mention, as others have noted, a near continual 'changing' of what you've said, both preceding and subsequent to responses. For instance, above is your original statement. Now, you have a, somewhat defensive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
You invited comments, including inconvenient ones.
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 without someone hijacking and derailing this thread for their own ends.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-12-2018 at 7:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 04-12-2018, 9:26 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's yet another group...

Parkland Students Are Asking Advertising’s Brightest Minds to Help Grow the Gun Control Movement

Quote:
...The Female Quotient, a group committed to advancing equality in the workplace, invited the students to the conference. It was one of the first times that anyone in the advertising industry had reached out to them, though the Gun Safety Alliance, which includes business leaders in tech, media, entertainment and marketing helped support March for Our Lives and its follow-up efforts.

Initially, the students planned to meet with a small group from the Female Quotient in a lounge at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel. But as word spread about their invitation, the group and the 4A’s worked to give the students a larger space to address some of the ad industry’s most influential members. When the students made their appearance, they received a standing-room only reception...

The students articulated a number of goals with a pitch that targeted the ad industry’s strengths. They were looking for funding to advance their cause, but they also wanted help amplifying their message through media buys and national PSAs.

One student described the need for tech partners to help them build an app that records the views of every political candidate at the federal, state and local level. Another explained that they were in the market for more creative ways to send stronger, clearer messages with T-shirts that support their movement...

Trailing them was the documentary crew capturing the students’ interactions as they took in the stunning views of Miami Beach and the lounge, which featured portraits of some of Parkland’s most outspoken advocates like David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez...

Sam Zeif, student, member and voice of Change The Ref, a nonprofit founded by the family of Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver, explained that the victims of Sandy Hook were too young to speak out, and that Columbine students lived in a different era. “They didn’t have this easy ability to get in touch with advertisers,” he said. “That’s what I think differentiates us. In this generation, it’s easy to get our word out.”...

Zeif wants to hit the gun lobby where actionable change can happen: at the voting polls. He came to 4A’s looking for a partner to help him build campaigns showing voters which side of the gun debate political candidates are on. “There are two teams now. You’re either with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you’re out.”

Zeif also pitched the idea of building an app containing a database of candidates’ verified views in order to cut through what he described as misinformation on the internet...

“This is pretty much a battle with the NRA right now,” Jared Helman, a leader for Change the Ref said. “You can look at how they’ve been advertising. … They’re very malicious, and they don’t hold back anything.”...
Notice that while the headline suggests the kids sought them out, the text indicates they went to the kids.

Now, you might note this, from 3 October 2017, with reference to the Gun Safety Alliance.

'DEAR AMERICA': MARKETING EXECS CALL FOR TIGHTER GUN LAWS

Quote:
Several top marketing, media and agency execs are going public with a new call for gun safety laws in the wake of this week's mass shooting in Las Vegas. Executives from JPMorgan Chase, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola Co., Facebook, HP and Horizon Media are among the people who have signed a petition circulating via email that is demanding action in the wake of the tragedy...

Organizers met quietly for months well before the Las Vegas massacre but decided to go public in wake of the shooting. Though the group, going by the name Gun Safety Alliance, is still formulating its plans, it could eventually run public awareness campaigns, says Steven Wolfe Pereira, chief marketing and communications officer at Quantcast, who is among those leading the effort.

Other organizers include Carolyn Everson, Facebook's VP for global marketing solutions; Kristin Lemkau, chief marketing officer at JPMorgan Chase; Ross Martin, a former Viacom exec and current CEO of the marketing and innovation agency Blackbird; Ben Lerer, CEO at Group Nine Media; and Lisa Licht, CMO of U.S. Concerts at Live Nation Entertainment, Wolfe Pereira says.

He stresses that the members are acting as individuals, not on behalf of their companies...

According to an emailed copy of the letter reviewed by Ad Age, signatories include Katie Bayne, senior VP, global sparkling brands for Coca-Cola Co.; Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington; Brad Jakeman, president of PepsiCo's global beverage group; Bill Koenigsberg, CEO and founder of Horizon Media; and Antonio Lucio, global chief marketing and communication officer at HP. Ad Age Publisher Josh Golden says he intends to add his name...
You might want to also note the list of sponsors (scroll down the page for a 'list') for The Female Quotient in that many of the names appear to crossover with the Gun Safety Alliance; not to mention with a number of posts in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 04-12-2018, 9:50 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
↑ This is argument. Even if those assertions ("somebody" is behind something) could be supported with evidence in the form of a tangible document, they lack any social, political, or historical significance.
Don't be obtuse.

You don't get to dismiss an argument based on your "perceived significance." If it's significant to us, it's significant, full stop. At the minimum, it establishes connection and coordination. Providing free air time on TV and using social network by highly visible and followed individuals is an extremely valuable tool.

That is a lot of significance, both for understanding the scope of the "kids' movement," and for understanding their strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
A group of youth or groups of youths articulated a message with which you disagree (summarized as we don't like guns; ban guns). Whether or not someone paid money for organizing does not confront the content of the message. To the contrary, the "somebody is behind something" notion is deflection.
It's not that we disagree with the message, it's that the message is identical to the message that is pushed by those who are organizing and bankrolling the protest. Worse, the message is inconsistent with the event on the ground - it was a small capacity magazine and the shooter passed the background check.

The preponderance of evidence is clear.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 04-12-2018, 9:54 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
The notion that "someone is behind something" is speculation, conjecture, and distortion.
Not when that someone is providing significant funds, logistics, free advertising, the message, faulty statistics, coordination, etc.

That's what we call "being behind something." Unless you are using different definition, we have evidence for every item in the list above.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-13-2018, 5:43 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Not when that someone is providing significant funds, logistics, free advertising, the message, faulty statistics, coordination, etc.

That's what we call "being behind something." Unless you are using different definition, we have evidence for every item in the list above.
Speaking of which...

How the Parkland students pulled off a massive national protest in only 5 weeks

Quote:
Giffords... provided transportation to Washington for some Stoneman Douglas families with the help of New England Patriots CEO Robert Kraft, who provided the team's jet to help families get to Washington...

Everytown for Gun Safety supplied operational and logistical resources for marches in Atlanta, Chicago, Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Milwaukee and New Orleans, the group said Sunday. Additionally, the organization said it gave out $5,000 grants to more than 200 local organizers across the country to ensure they had operational resources. The group helped to support transportation for students from cities including Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to travel to the march in D.C. ...

Ben and Jerry's also chipped in with grants to fund bus transportation to the march...
$5,000 to more than 200 local organizers by Everytown for Gun Safety?! Umm... I wasn't a math major, but that's 5,000 x 200 = $1,000,000. So, Everytown alone contributed more than $1,000,000 just to the marches as a 'supporting' organization?

Now we have a voter registration drive coming up by 'kids' from Colorado?

Quote:
We are a National movement created to continue momentum after the March for Our Lives events. We are between the ages of 12-25. WE are the ones most affected by the issue of gun violence and it is clear that WE must be the ones to stop it.

​Never again. On April 20, 1999 our world forever changed when two gunman entered Columbine High School. Since that day, there have been more and more school shootings and very little political action to stop it. What would have happened if something was done to prevent the shooting on April 19, 1999? We need to stop the clock.

​Our first event is on April 19th at the park next to Columbine. After that, each city will host their own event on a day that is significant to them and we will keep the pressure up until the Midterms. We will VOTE OUT the politicians corrupted by special interest money and VOTE IN the politicians who will give the power back to the people.

​We walked out. We marched. Now we vote.
Yep. It's ALL about "kid power," the "kid's organizing," the "kid's message," the... Uh... Ummm... Wait a minute...

Colorado Students Are Behind Nationwide Vote for Our Lives Campaign

Quote:
...The students in Colorado are working with large national groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety, to recruit local organizers to host voter-registration events in their own cities around the nation. At the moment, Rose says, those events include over thirty rallies in places such as Parkland, San Francisco and Houston. There's also a voter-registration rally happening in Littleton at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 19, at Clement Park by Columbine.

“They're basically voter-registration rallies, but it's also to help educate young people,” Rose says. On April 19, “we'll have speakers who are survivors. We're flying out students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School," the school in Parkland...
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 04-13-2018, 6:12 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just going down the list from the OP in this thread...
  • New England Patriots' owner Robert Kraft at the behest of...
  • Giffords Organization
  • MoveOn
  • Women's March L.A.
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  • "a teachers' union"
  • Michael Bloomberg
  • Planned Parenthood
  • American Federation of Teachers
  • Representative Ted Lieu (Democrat, Los Angeles)
  • Everytown for Gun Safety
  • Deena Katz (producer, connected to George Soros)
  • Ron Conway (big money raiser for Democrats)
  • Broward Education Foundation
  • Oprah Winfrey
  • George and Amal Clooney
  • Gucci
  • Episcopal Diocese of Washington
  • The Brady Campaign
  • George Kieffer, chair of the Board of Regents of the University of California
  • Jeri Rhodes, who is with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Washington-based lobbying group founded by Quakers
  • Aileen Adams, who served under former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
  • Nina Vinik, an attorney who has a background in gun violence prevention
  • Vernetta Walker from BoardSource, an organization that provides support for nonprofit leaders
  • Melissa Scholz, an attorney who has expertise in nonprofit law
  • Media Matters
  • The Peace Warriors
  • The Female Quotient
  • The Gun Safety Alliance

That's without getting into some of the people supporting/backing some of those organizations or the media outlets providing access to a microphone or the businesses engaging in boycotts of virtually ANYONE critical of these students. All of those groups have provided support in the form of funding (some of it major), organization, transportation, training/advice, contacts to media and funding opportunities/individuals, handling of funds raised, and more.

If this is truly a grassroots movement, why are these kids receiving such major support while other students, including some from the same school who were 'there' for the shooting, not receiving much, if any recognition or support for their opposing, pro-gun message?

Why are all the individuals and organizations 'documented' thus far strictly Left-Wing, anti-gun, and similar? If it's truly grassroots, shouldn't there be some kind of Right-leaning (even if not "Right Wing"), pro-gun, and similar representation on that list?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-13-2018 at 6:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-13-2018, 9:41 AM
nate76239 nate76239 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,434
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

The. Women’s march was also assisting with the protest event in Washington and they posted a comment on Twitter complaining about backpage being shutdown. I guess they don’t have a problem supporting a site that was facilitating child trafficking
Quote:
The shutting down of #Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers who rely on the site to safely get in touch with clients. Sex workers rights are women’s rights. Follow @SafeSpacesDC @melissagira @swopusa @KateDAdamo @supporthosechi @anaorsomething for more info.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/11/st...arch-backpage/
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-13-2018, 10:28 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If this is truly a grassroots movement, why are these kids receiving such major support while other students, including some from the same school who were 'there' for the shooting, not receiving much, if any recognition or support for their opposing, pro-gun message?
Alternatively, what makes the NRA a true grassroots is the LACK of all of the above.

As for these kids and their cheerleaders, I guess, pretenders will keep pretending...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-13-2018, 10:35 AM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 872
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

To anyone who thinks Parkland wasn't staged, just going to leave this here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ReedAbbit...596864/video/1

- David Hogg's father works for a company that simulates traumatic events (Cubic Simulation Systems).
- Broward County school district has had over a dozen active shooter drills in the past year.
- Some of the active shooter drills involve police roaming through the schools firing blanks (???!!!) Farking excesssive IMO

Video: Parkland Teacher's First Thoughts After Seeing Shooter: "Why Are The Police Here?"

She said she witnessed a shooter who looked to be police dressed in full armor shooting a type of gun she'd not seen before.

Conjecture: the shooter that this teacher witnessed was not Cruz. She would have recognized a S&W M&P 15 that Cruz allegedly used as a standard AR-15.



And WTF is this?

Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-14-2018, 10:40 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Alternatively, what makes the NRA a true grassroots is the LACK of all of the above.

As for these kids and their cheerleaders, I guess, pretenders will keep pretending...
I think this piece sums it up nicely...

Salon Author Tries — And Fails — To Explain Why the Right Opposes Student-led Gun Control Activism

Quote:
...Conservatives know that guns do not make us immortal. But they can extend one’s life when used in self-defense. In fact, they save lives often. So there’s no “imagined” benefit to owning guns for self-protection. The benefit is real. And yes, conservatives know we will die eventually. But there’s nothing that says we must die at the hands of an armed attacker before our time. Not if we have the means to protect ourselves.

That’s not anxiety. That’s common sense.

Gun rights advocates have long opposed gun control. They’d say exactly what they’re saying if eighty-year-olds were now leading the movement. What do we say about the Parkland students? Kids can be wrong too. Not because they’re kids. Because they’re wrong.
Funny how the list of supporters brought to light in this thread believe or, at least, stridently scream exactly the opposite.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-15-2018, 5:01 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,527
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-16-2018, 6:19 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Yes. The anti-civil rights crowd really should "let it go."

Of course, I thought I was "letting it go" (for now) by providing a summary of who we've shown is behind the Parkland Kids...

Quote:
Just going down the list from the OP in this thread...
  • New England Patriots' owner Robert Kraft at the behest of...
  • Giffords Organization
  • MoveOn
  • Women's March L.A.
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  • "a teachers' union"
  • Michael Bloomberg
  • Planned Parenthood
  • American Federation of Teachers
  • Representative Ted Lieu (Democrat, Los Angeles)
  • Everytown for Gun Safety
  • Deena Katz (producer, connected to George Soros)
  • Ron Conway (big money raiser for Democrats)
  • Broward Education Foundation
  • Oprah Winfrey
  • George and Amal Clooney
  • Gucci
  • Episcopal Diocese of Washington
  • The Brady Campaign
  • George Kieffer, chair of the Board of Regents of the University of California
  • Jeri Rhodes, who is with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Washington-based lobbying group founded by Quakers
  • Aileen Adams, who served under former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
  • Nina Vinik, an attorney who has a background in gun violence prevention
  • Vernetta Walker from BoardSource, an organization that provides support for nonprofit leaders
  • Melissa Scholz, an attorney who has expertise in nonprofit law
  • Media Matters
  • The Peace Warriors
  • The Female Quotient
  • The Gun Safety Alliance

That's without getting into some of the people supporting/backing some of those organizations or the media outlets providing access to a microphone or the businesses engaging in boycotts of virtually ANYONE critical of these students. All of those groups have provided support in the form of funding (some of it major), organization, transportation, training/advice, contacts to media and funding opportunities/individuals, handling of funds raised, and more.
And noting, in response to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
Alternatively, what makes the NRA a true grassroots is the LACK of all of the above.

As for these kids and their cheerleaders, I guess, pretenders will keep pretending...
...that...

I think this piece sums it up nicely...

Salon Author Tries — And Fails — To Explain Why the Right Opposes Student-led Gun Control Activism

Quote:
...Conservatives know that guns do not make us immortal. But they can extend one’s life when used in self-defense. In fact, they save lives often. So there’s no “imagined” benefit to owning guns for self-protection. The benefit is real. And yes, conservatives know we will die eventually. But there’s nothing that says we must die at the hands of an armed attacker before our time. Not if we have the means to protect ourselves.

That’s not anxiety. That’s common sense.

Gun rights advocates have long opposed gun control. They’d say exactly what they’re saying if eighty-year-olds were now leading the movement. What do we say about the Parkland students? Kids can be wrong too. Not because they’re kids. Because they’re wrong.
Funny how the list of supporters brought to light in this thread believe or, at least, stridently scream exactly the opposite. Not to mention bringing us back to, essentially, the basic questions in the OP...

Why are all the individuals and organizations 'documented' thus far strictly Left-Wing, anti-gun, and similar?

If it's truly grassroots, shouldn't there be some kind of Right-leaning (even if not "Right Wing"), pro-gun, and similar representation on that list?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-16-2018, 9:36 AM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I invited comment, which, by nature, would include some discourse.
What you have been proffering is dismissive and insulting narrative based on an illusory and non-relevant (not to mention unattainable in this venue) definition of "evidence" and an overwhelming desire for a "different conversation."
Now you are saying that challenging you to produce evidence and authority for your contentions hurts your sensitive feelings. Support your contentions with verifiable evidence and authority. Give the readers something substantial with which to confront the public policy arguments in favor of gun control and then present meaningful public arguments in favor of armament. Otherwse, this thread is no better than the hysterical claims "Slaugherhouse cases," "the ACLU stole my cheese," "Tom Cruise is bad Hollywood but Tom Sellect is good Hollywood," "weapons of mass destruction," and when in doubt, "Posse Comitatus."

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-16-2018 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:38 AM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post

You don't get to dismiss an argument based on your "perceived significance." . . . Free air time . . .

...understanding strategy...

It's not that we disagree with the message, it's that the message is identical to the message that is pushed by those who are organizing and bankrolling the protest.
Arguments without verifiable evidence and authority have zero validity legally, historically, or sociologically. Without evidence or authority, the claim is supposition and an admission that the claim has no merit (the same thing you claim the "antis" to be doing). See CRC 3.1113(a). The public policy reasons for the enactment of gun control laws cannot be confronted with nonsense claims that "someone is behind something." You must engage the substance with sociology, history, and law, with evidence and authority. A scientist should know that.

The statement, "It's not that we disagree with the message, it's that the message is identical to the message that is pushed by those who are organizing and bankrolling the protest," is irrational. Apparently, you agree with the disarmament message, but dislike it based on its supporters. To attempt to impugn the character of the protesters, based on the identity of the supporters (allegedly some actors), is deflection, aka shooting the messenger with a nonsense notion that association with actors is scary. "Someone is behind something" does not advance any meaningful thought or action.

Claiming that this thin thread examines "strategy" and examines "free air time" is disengenuous. Street protest is, as already indicated, display by the politically weak (in this case the inability to effectuate national gun control legislation):
Substantively, staging protest is the weapon of the weak. Protest groups typically are resource poor. They lack direct access to the policymaking process and often challenge (the lack of ) extant policies. These elements make responsiveness unlikely. By staging protest and going public, protesters seek social support, hoping to set in motion a process that will make it hard for elected officials to continue ignoring them.
Wounters and Welgrave, "Demonstrating Power: How Protest Persuades Political Representatives," (American Sociological Review 2017, Vol. 82(2)), pp. 362.

The national "March for our Lives" protests arose, because the federal congress has rejected calls for gun control measures after each hysteria driven demand post- published shooting. Congress has not enacted a gun control measure since the 1993 Handgun Control Act (the 1994 AW law expired). Federally, the gun control issue is dead. Thus, national gun control proponents must march, because their influence is weak in Washington. Wounters and Welgrave, pp.

That "gun control" proponents have access to the media is the order of the day. This thread is no revelation. But, if media access for gun control proponents is a revelation, we can lay that confusion to rest by pointing to the 2,290,000 gun control articles produced by a Google search.

Last edited by sarabellum; 04-16-2018 at 12:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:14 AM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 797
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

In order to maintain individual freedoms and the principles under which this country was founded the general population has to maintain the right to bear arms of a caliber that is equal to or close enough to the government's arms to make the government fear trying to create a dictatorship by an individual or a minority group going against the welfare and well being of the general public. There will always be politicians and future politicians who will abuse and use the law to enforce their will on a lazy public that will not demand that their rights be preserved even when they are a minority at some point in time. The very people demanding to take your guns are the ones rioting in the streets, destroying innocent people's private property, and marching for the purpose of provoking trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-16-2018, 5:40 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
The statement, "It's not that we disagree with the message, it's that the message is identical to the message that is pushed by those who are organizing and bankrolling the protest," is irrational.
"Irrational?" Please do tell...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-16-2018, 10:13 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,755
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Arguments without verifiable evidence and authority have zero validity legally, historically, or sociologically.
Verbal diarrhea.

Legally, the standard in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in civil cases it is "preponderance of evidence." You have no clue if you are going to claim "verifiable evidence" in legal context.

As for history and particularly sociology, what passes for theories and evidence is much, much looser. Actually, it's quite gracious to call sociology a "soft science" since there is practically no science in it - the core of the field is to use correlation and pretend it "proves" causality.

Back to "kids demanding gun control." Even if we forget about your gibberish about evidence, 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.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:03 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Verbal diarrhea.

Legally, the standard in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" and in civil cases it is "preponderance of evidence." You have no clue if you are going to claim "verifiable evidence" in legal context.

As for history and particularly sociology, what passes for theories and evidence is much, much looser. Actually, it's quite gracious to call sociology a "soft science" since there is practically no science in it - the core of the field is to use correlation and pretend it "proves" causality.

Back to "kids demanding gun control." Even if we forget about your gibberish about evidence, 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.
I predict a pedantic, bot like response with a full course of Random Word Salad
that ignores your points....


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-17-2018, 7:07 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
I predict a pedantic, bot like response with a full course of Random Word Salad that ignores your points.... :rolleyes
Even in his pedantry, there are elements of reality. Unfortunately, his arguments are based on so many false premises, inaccurate assertions regarding the argument(s) being made, and the relevance of his 'sources' that any attempt at rebuttal would be protracted. Or, as I said earlier... 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.

Given that derailment of the thread appears to be his goal and any counter argument presented is summarily (often rudely) dismissed in the type of retort you suggest, based on the false premises, inaccurate assertions, and lack of relevance he obtusely persists in attempting to apply to this thread, I have chosen to, as best I can, ignore his accusations, claims, and desire for a different conversation. As I have invited him to do on two or three occasions, if he is desirous of a different conversation, he should start his own thread and have that conversation; leaving us to have the type of conversation we've been having.

As I've shown above, I'd try to meet him halfway were he to listen to what we've been trying to tell him. Instead, he persists in his demands that we provide government sources, quotations from 'scholarly' articles/books, follow the rules of evidence and citation from academia and the legal system, use of definitions as they pertain to the criminal realm, and then rails against his vision of what has been said rather than what has actually been said. Worse. He does so in an insulting and condescending manner, evidently presuming that if it's not done "his way," the practitioners are illiterate, ignorant, uncouth, uncultured, overly sensitive, and the arguments made, therefore, lack any substance.

The solace I take is that he has done exactly this, repeatedly, in the past and to some very recognizable and professionally qualified individuals on this site. Some of them very well respected by the members. When they respond to his presumptive 'challenge' in a manner similar to the way we have, he has used, verbatim, the same responses regarding documentation, illiteracy, etc.

So, I suppose that places me in 'good company' on this board. Their method of dealing with him has been similar in that they've 'engaged' him, to a point, then 'moved on;' very occasionally calling him out regarding his "usual drivel" or "re-making" questions/arguments into something not said and never intended, et al. (Remember, I have been what tends to be termed, on this site, a "quiet/silent lurker" for a decade or more and "search" proves my memories correct.)

With all that said, he does have, on occasion, relevant, useful, and professionally documented/presented information to offer.

I once knew an elderly gentleman who was similarly 'afflicted.' I first met him as he neared retirement and then encountered him, semi-regularly, for nearly two decades after. He was a fountain of knowledge. But, were you 'brave' or 'foolish' enough to query him (depending on your understanding of him), you had to wade through a far-ranging and often irrelevant flood of information (entertaining as it often was) to sieve out the kernels you were after. Fortunately, he was a polite and gregarious gentleman to the end and you never felt the time to be totally 'wasted;' though there were some 'anxious moments' when your time was limited. (Picture an individual, somewhat, akin to "Ducky" on NCIS.)

In the end, I could only hope to be as well received and respected as that individual was in my waning years. There are times when I can see similar 'rambling' in my own contributions; though I still attempt to keep them as directly relevant as I can. Occasionally, I fear a certain 'gruffness' or 'terseness' creeps in where the individual I reference had virtually none for those who approached him.

As a result, my suggestion, as regards the member in this discussion, is to simply not 'argue,' allowing him to have his say, then moving on; perhaps with a brief attempt at discourse, if possible. If he refuses polite discourse and relevant debate, simply move on. Hopefully, readers and contributors will be able to continue with the offerings and the thread remain relevant and useful/helpful for the purposes intended.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-17-2018, 7:08 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Even in his pedantry, there are elements of reality. Unfortunately, his arguments are based on so many false premises, inaccurate assertions regarding the argument(s) being made, and the relevance of his 'sources' that any attempt at rebuttal would be protracted. Or, as I said earlier... 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.

Given that derailment of the thread appears to be his goal and any counter argument presented is summarily (often rudely) dismissed in the type of retort you suggest, based on the false premises, inaccurate assertions, and lack of relevance he obtusely persists in attempting to apply to this thread, I have chosen to, as best I can, ignore his accusations, claims, and desire for a different conversation. As I have invited him to do on two or three occasions, if he is desirous of a different conversation, he should start his own thread and have that conversation; leaving us to have the type of conversation we've been having.

As I've shown above, I'd try to meet him halfway were he to listen to what we've been trying to tell him. Instead, he persists in his demands that we provide government sources, quotations from 'scholarly' articles/books, follow the rules of evidence and citation from academia and the legal system, use of definitions as they pertain to the criminal realm, and then rails against his vision of what has been said rather than what has actually been said. Worse. He does so in an insulting and condescending manner, evidently presuming that if it's not done "his way," the practitioners are illiterate, ignorant, uncouth, uncultured, overly sensitive, and the arguments made, therefore, lack any substance.

The solace I take is that he has done exactly this, repeatedly, in the past and to some very recognizable and professionally qualified individuals on this site. Some of them very well respected by the members. When they respond to his presumptive 'challenge' in a manner similar to the way we have, he has used, verbatim, the same responses regarding documentation, illiteracy, etc.

So, I suppose that places me in 'good company' on this board. Their method of dealing with him has been similar in that they've 'engaged' him, to a point, then 'moved on;' very occasionally calling him out regarding his "usual drivel" or "re-making" questions/arguments into something not said and never intended, et al. (Remember, I have been what tends to be termed, on this site, a "quiet/silent lurker" for a decade or more and "search" proves my memories correct.)

With all that said, he does have, on occasion, relevant, useful, and professionally documented/presented information to offer.

I once knew an elderly gentleman who was similarly 'afflicted.' I first met him as he neared retirement and then encountered him, semi-regularly, for nearly two decades after. He was a fountain of knowledge. But, were you 'brave' or 'foolish' enough to query him (depending on your understanding of him), you had to wade through a far-ranging and often irrelevant flood of information (entertaining as it often was) to sieve out the kernels you were after. Fortunately, he was a polite and gregarious gentleman to the end and you never felt the time to be totally 'wasted;' though there were some 'anxious moments' when your time was limited. (Picture an individual, somewhat, akin to "Ducky" on NCIS.)

In the end, I could only hope to be as well received and respected as that individual was in my waning years. There are times when I can see similar 'rambling' in my own contributions; though I still attempt to keep them as directly relevant as I can. Occasionally, I fear a certain 'gruffness' or 'terseness' creeps in where the individual I reference had virtually none for those who approached him.

As a result, my suggestion, as regards the member in this discussion, is to simply not 'argue,' allowing him to have his say, then moving on; perhaps with a brief attempt at discourse, if possible. If he refuses polite discourse and relevant debate, simply move on. Hopefully, readers and contributors will be able to continue with the offerings and the thread remain relevant and useful/helpful for the purposes intended.
Well, thanks for the synopsis, which I think is fairly accurate, but I am well
acquainted with Sarabellum's methodology and history, as is IVC.

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.

It's clear who is winning the debate, and its Not the person with a
homophone moniker.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-17-2018, 8:37 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
Well, thanks for the synopsis, which I think is fairly accurate, but I am well acquainted with Sarabellum's methodology and history, as is IVC.

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.

It's clear who is winning the debate, and its Not the person with a
homophone moniker.
Okay. I've been known to engage in similar exchanges myself at times.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-17-2018, 8:45 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
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.
Perhaps this is an exemplar...

David Hogg tells Twitter followers to boycott BlackRock and Vanguard

Quote:
...BlackRock, Invesco (IVZ) and Vanguard are the top three institutional holders of American Outdoor Brands (AOBC), the parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., one of the world’s largest gun manufacturers. BlackRock and Vanguard are also the largest holders of gunmaker Sturm Ruger (RGR).

Many of these funds are passively managed, which means companies like American Outdoor Brands and Sturm Ruger are in the portfolios because they are part of major stock market indexes.

Earlier this month, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, announced that it would offer two new exchange-traded funds and new index-tracking products for pensions and 401(k) plans that exclude stocks of gunmakers and large gun retailers...

Vanguard offers the FTSE Social Index Fund, which screens companies based on social and environmental criteria, excluding gun manufacturers.

But, Hogg is not satisfied with these auxiliary options and is encouraging his 764,000 followers to boycott holding groups like Vanguard and BlackRock...
Pretty sophisticated and nuanced thinking for a 17-year old high school student that was, ostensibly, interested in 'school safety.'

Perhaps this piece from the end of February influenced his thinking...

Investors rethink holdings in gun companies

Quote:
...BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money-management company, says it is exploring ways to remove gun companies from the portfolios of clients who no longer wish to invest in them.

In Florida, teachers expressed frustration that their own pension fund includes gun stocks, including American Outdoor Brands of Springfield, Mass., formerly Smith & Wesson, which made the assault rifle used to kill 17 students and educators at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Activists have made similar appeals for years, but recent developments suggest that the financial community senses rising public pressure...

More institutions, including pension funds and municipalities, are demanding that their portfolios exclude companies that make guns and other weapons.

Many of the pension funds, such as the giant CalSTRS, represent one of the groups most affected by school shootings: teachers.

Pension funds managed for public school teachers in at least a dozen states, including Florida, New York, and California, own stocks issued by the makers of firearms or ammunition...

That might not depress gun stocks because other investors will probably still be willing to buy them, but activists say it could help build sway the view of more Americans against companies that refuse to stop selling military-style rifles to civilains.

Some investors are trying to exert pressure from within. Shareholders have filed at least three proposals at sellers or makers of guns in the current proxy season.

The proposals ask American Outdoor Brands; Dick’s Sporting Goods; and Sturm Ruger to report on steps they’re taking to improve gun safety and to mitigate the harm associated with gun products.

The proposals were filed by religious groups affiliated with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, whose members includes 300 institutional investors that manage $400 billion in assets.

Some institutions such as BlackRock, which manages $6.3 trillion, are privately contacting gun companies to make their case.

“Given our inability to sell shares of a company in an index, even if we disagree with management, we focus on engaging with the company and understanding how they are responding to society’s expectations of them,” said BlackRock spokesman Ed Sweeney.

BlackRock manages more than $200 billion of assets that are screened for weapons ownership and other value-based issues, and Sweeney said the company works with clients who want to exclude weapons makers from their portfolios.

BlackRock is largest holder of the three companies where the stockholder proposals have been filed: Dick’s Sporting goods, with 8.4 percent; Sturm Ruger, with almost 17 percent; and American Outdoor Brands, with 11.11 percent.

At each of the three, whose market capitalization is relatively small, anywhere from a quarter to nearly half of shares are owned by a handful of large institutions that, like BlackRock, generally track market indexes.

The Florida Education Association urged the state board that controls the pensions to sell its American Outdoor stock as well as that of other gun companies.
Not to mention this one, also from the end of February...

Mass shootings have made gun stocks toxic assets on Wall Street

Quote:
...It was considered an effective strategy in apartheid South Africa. Opponents of the apartheid regime focused their ire on the companies that were directly invested in the country. They began urging institutional investors, including universities, to divest their assets from companies that did business with the regime. Archbishop Desmond Tutu credited the divestment campaign as a key tactic in bringing down apartheid.

The concept of divesting became mainstream in the United States during the climate change debate. Frustration over what was viewed as weak UN climate agreements, plus the US Senate's failure to pass a climate bill in 2010, pushed foundations and nonprofit groups —such as Greenpeace — to ensure their investments were not going to big oil companies.

Activist celebrities, like Leonardo DiCaprio, popularized the idea, encouraging Americans to make sure their retirement money was invested in renewable energy. In 2015, a group of foundations launched the DivestInvest initiative, which helps foundations, individuals and businesses divest from fossil fuels.

In recent years, gun-control activists have turned to divestiture as a tactic. Rapper Snoop Dogg and angel investor Ron Conway joined the Campaign to Unload, launched in the wake of Sandy Hook and featuring the hashtag #UnloadYour401k...
Wait. Haven't we heard the name of "angel investor Ron Conway" before? You know. Back on Page 1, Post #18?

Quote:
Originally Posted by familyfarm
Ron Conway (Google him if you don't know) donated big $$ and hit up silicon valley donors in an email I received begging for funding for the March. Ron is a very wealthy tech investor with strong SF/CA democrat political ties.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-17-2018 at 9:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-17-2018, 9:14 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,006
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Pretty sophisticated and nuanced thinking for a 17-year old high school student that was, ostensibly, interested in 'school safety.'

Perhaps this piece from the end of February influenced his thinking...
I don't see his tweet as sophisticated or nuanced. It takes all of 5 minutes to figure this out by anyone with a Jr High School education. It's all public knowledge.

Interesting that he is calling for a boycott of BlackRock however BlackRock is now offering a "gun free" exchange traded fund in which they leave out gun manufacturers and big retailers. If he was so nuanced he would have picked up on this two week only news and told people to vote with the money. Instead he called for a blanket boycott which might work in some places, but with people's retirement and wealth it will not.

I think he proved to me for sure he is a 17 year old kid. Smart, a product of a good education so far, but not quite exactly grasping the way of things completely quite yet.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-17-2018, 9:40 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 494
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I don't see his tweet as sophisticated or nuanced. It takes all of 5 minutes to figure this out by anyone with a Jr High School education. It's all public knowledge.

Interesting that he is calling for a boycott of BlackRock however BlackRock is now offering a "gun free" exchange traded fund in which they leave out gun manufacturers and big retailers. If he was so nuanced he would have picked up on this two week only news and told people to vote with the money. Instead he called for a blanket boycott which might work in some places, but with people's retirement and wealth it will not.

I think he proved to me for sure he is a 17 year old kid. Smart, a product of a good education so far, but not quite exactly grasping the way of things completely quite yet.
I just find it awful 'convenient' that this 'kid' has come to a plan that was part of the same, exact plan bankrolled by one of the major supporters/contributors to the "March" which you've 'written off' as 'no surprise.'

As you've been told before, it's not about what "we" know or suspect. It's about precisely what IVC said (which is why I led the post by quoting him)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
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.
If you want to simply write this off, again, as an example of 'good education,' then you're welcome to. If you are going to continue demanding "hard evidence" (a.k.a., "some smoking gun"), which is what you suggested on the first page of this thread was what you desired, then, again, you're in the wrong place. Why? As I've already stated...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
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.
You've also declared...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I don't think we'll get names because of the decentralized effort.
Yet, we do have a growing list of names; one of which also appears to be, potentially, connected to this latest move by Hogg as one of the major movers/shakers behind a similar effort post-Sandy Hook.

You are correct. A blanket boycott isn't 'nuanced.' Yet, the articles I quoted state that he's going for a blanket boycott despite moves already made by the companies in that direction; i.e., putting more pressure on them to completely abandon investment in the companies rather than simply creating 'alternatives.' But, that's 'nuanced' thinking for a 17-year old in terms of understanding how all this works and how such a strategy would bring 'more pressure.'

You are also correct in your earlier assessment...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser
I think the organizations push the kids forward as it really is the kids' agenda, however, they are taking advantage of the situation because their methods and wants for total disarmament are served by what the kids are putting forward. If anything the kids are being used as pawns as you alluded to already.
Which is precisely why this thread exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
That's what this thread has been doing... Highlighting the specifics as to who and what organizations have actually been doing "the hard work" they've been "trained" to do in terms of organizing and promoting the Parkland kids. In doing so, it's also shown that the original message of the kids - safety in schools - has been morphed into something substantively different; causing the kids' message, not to mention most of the actual survivors, to recede in terms of media attention.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-17-2018, 10:18 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,006
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I just find it awful 'convenient' that this 'kid' has come to a plan that was part of the same, exact plan bankrolled by one of the major supporters/contributors to the "March" which you've 'written off' as 'no surprise.'

As you've been told before, it's not about what "we" know or suspect. It's about precisely what IVC said (which is why I led the post by quoting him)...



If you want to simply write this off, again, as an example of 'good education,' then you're welcome to. If you are going to continue demanding "hard evidence" (a.k.a., "some smoking gun"), which is what you suggested on the first page of this thread was what you desired, then, again, you're in the wrong place. Why? As I've already stated...



You've also declared...



Yet, we do have a growing list of names; one of which also appears to be, potentially, connected to this latest move by Hogg as one of the major movers/shakers behind a similar effort post-Sandy Hook.

You are correct. A blanket boycott isn't 'nuanced.' Yet, the articles I quoted state that he's going for a blanket boycott despite moves already made by the companies in that direction; i.e., putting more pressure on them to completely abandon investment in the companies rather than simply creating 'alternatives.' But, that's 'nuanced' thinking for a 17-year old in terms of understanding how all this works and how such a strategy would bring 'more pressure.'

You are also correct in your earlier assessment...



Which is precisely why this thread exists.
You have a list of people who have glommed on for their own reasons. People who want publicity or are willing to ride coattails.

I'm not insisting on a smoking gun because quite frankly there isn't one. 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.

I can see how you think he may be nuanced, but a simple boycott call is just more of the same overall. He really risks burning himself out. Boycott the world strategies never work in the long run, but I get your point, and maybe for a 17 year old it is nuanced, but that would show no adult is telling him what to say. A real strategy from an adult would be well thought out (one would hope anyway).

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.
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 10:06 PM.




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.