CDZ David Hogg and NRA: Fight or Flight? Refuse Resist? Unite on Rights?

[emilynghiem]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

 

[JoeMoma]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

 

[emilynghiem]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

What if he gets used to start a national movement to teach
students parents and the public Constitutional laws and process?
Wouldn't that be historical? JoeMoma

 

[Humorme]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

 

[emilynghiem]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

Yes so why not a real plan to teach the Billl of Rights in schools
so students CAN be armed with knowledge of the laws as the best defense, deterrence and correction of abuses of power
www.ethics-commission.net

What I propose is not only an educational outreach through public schools
and electoral districts, but a set of Holidays from Dec 15 to 24 to celebrate
the meaning and history of the articles in the Bill of Rights, plus add a day
for Christmas to celebrate 14th Amendment equal protections or Equal
Justice Under Law that is the secular meaning of Jesus being Lord of All, or Universal Law
and Justice for all people equally.

How about that as a plan? Humorme
we may not agree but at least it's more positive than all the yelling and bullying I see going on now....

 

[usmbguest5318]

What's the best way for NRA and Hogg supporters to address their issues with gun laws?

Best in pursuit of what end(s)?

 

[OldLady]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

Personally, I think clear backpacks ARE a violation of privacy, and I don't like them anymore than clear trash bags. I'd be very unhappy to have to use either and I don't blame the kids for not liking them. However, it is kind of funny to try and turn it into a Constitutional issue.

 

[TNHarley]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

Personally, I think clear backpacks ARE a violation of privacy, and I don't like them anymore than clear trash bags. I'd be very unhappy to have to use either and I don't blame the kids for not liking them. However, it is kind of funny to try and turn it into a Constitutional issue.

then ban all bags.
Let the snowflakes build some muscle carrying around those 50LB books. Maybe they will then have the strength to pull start a weedeater

 

[Humorme]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

Yes so why not a real plan to teach the Billl of Rights in schools
so students CAN be armed with knowledge of the laws as the best defense, deterrence and correction of abuses of power
www.ethics-commission.net

What I propose is not only an educational outreach through public schools
and electoral districts, but a set of Holidays from Dec 15 to 24 to celebrate
the meaning and history of the articles in the Bill of Rights, plus add a day
for Christmas to celebrate 14th Amendment equal protections or Equal
Justice Under Law that is the secular meaning of Jesus being Lord of All, or Universal Law
and Justice for all people equally.

How about that as a plan? Humorme
we may not agree but at least it's more positive than all the yelling and bullying I see going on now....

Actually, I do find something worthy of support in your post.

Children are not being taught the history of our nation. They don't understand the Bill of Rights. They cannot appreciate the values of the founders nor what it has helped us accomplish as a nation.

Part of that problem is that we, as adults, do not go into the schools and review the teaching curriculum, read the textbooks, and then challenge the absolute dung that far left liberals are indoctrinating the children with.

 

[miketx]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

Yet leftists like you can never come up with one except the same old tune: "Turn in your guns".

 

[Humorme]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

I wanted to come back to your original posting and inquire. You say we don't always agree, but if we add an option to what you said, how come you would be opposed to considering it?

I just heard some black girl and a really old white dude going at it on Newsmax. Got a call and did not get to finish that debate, but according to her, since the Assault Weapons Ban had been lifted, school shootings had gone up over 400 percent. Sounds horrific!

Then again, that has been over twenty years ago. And the total number of victims over-all has decreased! So, the other guy was arguing that schools should become like the county courthouses where you get screened on your way in. That was a good idea. Mass shootings generally happen in places that are gun free zones.

But, suppose that we could stop the bulk of mass shootings, save some lives, help some kids, and make government run more efficiently without spending much up front AND cutting the costs of government... all without infringing on the Rights of the citizenry (or individuals)???

 

[emilynghiem]

What's the best way for NRA and Hogg supporters to address their issues with gun laws?

Best in pursuit of what end(s)?

Dear Xelor thanks for joining in.
They both want to defend their rights they believe are under attack and threat of suppression by political monied interests.
What's the best way you see for both sides to defend their rights from infringement?
To team up and enforce common laws so everyone can have their own beliefs?
Or compete to bully each other down, in the media and in polls elections and govt office.

Both sides think the only way they can win is to outnumber and remove the other from office.
I'm saying if we agree to separate and respect each other's beliefs,everyone can enjoy and exercise representation
and nobody has to get infringed upon to do this.

We can all m anage, fund and reform our own local school programs to represent each community these serve.
So we don't all have to agree on all policies, and we can separate and fund different programs as religions do.

 

[jillian]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

buying legislators who then don't listen to the 90% of us who want guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and domestic abusers?

 

[Humorme]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

I wouldn't count on it. The media smells blood on this one and what the NRA offers is pure baloney instead of a solution. I have another option.

The problem is, you can't fix what's wrong with bumper sticker slogans. It takes a real plan.

Yet leftists like you can never come up with one except the same old tune: "Turn in your guns".

View attachment 185003

You're aiming that at me and calling me a leftist? What are you drinking?

I don't believe in ANY form of gun control. I think that once an individual who has spent time in prison, paid for their crimes and has been rehabilitated, they should have their Rights restored. If people are adjudged to be mentally unstable, I think they should be in protective custody where they don't pose a threat to society.

I got mad at George Bush for halting the imports of semi-automatic firearms into the U.S. I'm even pissed about the upcoming ban on bump fire stocks (even though you're way better off with aimed fire than those silly contraptions.) I realize that every gun control measure becomes a precedent for more and more gun control.

And you call me a leftist???

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

The left and the right are trying to fix complex problems in five sentences or less.... It ain't gonna happen. But me, being a lefty? Last year, I said enough is enough. I won't even submit to a background check - for any freaking reason!

 

[Humorme]

The NRA just need to keep doing what is has been doing. Hogg will be a just a distant memory this time next year.

buying legislators who then don't listen to the 90% of us who want guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and domestic abusers?

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

 

[Desperado]

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment - Never give-up, never surrender.
There can be no compromise!

 

[depotoo]

I wish there was an Utopia in which you aspire for, Emily. It would probably be a better place. You are amazing in how thoughtful you always are to problems that present themselves.
I mean that as the greatest compliment.

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

 

[Humorme]

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment - Never give-up, never surrender.
There can be no compromise!

Let's repeat what Desperado said:

"When it comes to the 2nd Amendment - Never give-up, never surrender.
There can be no compromise!"

The next strategic move that gun owners must make is to insure that even the smallest infringement will result in boycotting those politicians that agree to it. From here on out, the only compromise I think we should have is when the left compromises with gun owners. Always demand something in return. True, we may not get it, but they don't get what they want either with counter-proposals on the table.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Dude, you need to think that one through. The reality is, I came up with a plan that spans some thirty six pages of text and goes a long way into identifying and dealing with people before they become a threat and without infringing upon any of their Rights. The right, just like the left think that a dozen paragraphs are a book so it is TLDR.

If you want to keep the guns out of certain hands, why not support an idea that would keep the bodies belonging to those hands in jail, prison, protective / supervised custody and /or mental health facilities?

So you do want to deny people their right to liberty even though they may have served their sentence, or just because they may have mental issues. Take their rights away but don''t dare touch my rights.

Liberty for me but not for thee. SMFH

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been posting online to urge people not to take the hate bait over David Hogg and his rhetoric online.
And instead to use this opportunity to reach out and agree on Constitutional principles and arguments in common.

But then someone posted this and I just had to laugh:

Clearly it's not a First Amendment argument, but he's basically arguing against unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, and being deprived of liberty life or property without due process, and the issue of compelling interest by government in the LEAST restrictive way, ie that people will consent to.

Which approach do YOU support for NRA and opponents to take exception to David Hogg's statements:
1. Refuse and Resist, just argue back in DEFENSE using the same media tactics
2. Bully and Clobber to silence the opposition by yelling arguments louder and rallying to vote in opposition
3. Unite on common rights and principles both sides are arguing to defend,
so the narrative is redirected toward Constitutional laws and away from partisan attacks that detract
4. a combination of the above?

I believe we used 3, then we can organize the people who use tactic 1 or 2.
Whatever combination includes and represents different people and groups, let them do what works for them.

However I don't want to see resources wasted on fighting and attacking that
detract or obstruct the solutions from people working together.

I believe we can make this a teachable moment and reach across party lines to focus on common principles.
We can best teach the laws that govern society democratically, by example.

Which approach do you believe is most effective for you and why?

The Constitution is completely silent on backpacks. Why would anyone need access to a backpack that is opaque -- AND THAT HAS POCKETS WHERE THINGS COULD BE CONCEALED!??

If he's got nothing to hide, why is he objecting?