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

[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.

They are also not being taught the history of socialism around the world, or the danger of a government that has disarmed their people....

You're making an even better case as to why people like you and I would be better off checking out what books are being issued to the children in our schools and what kinds of people are teaching them as opposed to using our time to argue with people that are two french fries short of a Happy Meal.

 

[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.

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

They still weigh 50LB in the backpack, ya know. I think it's a law of physics or something.

 

[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

They still weigh 50LB in the backpack, ya know. I think it's a law of physics or something.

Carrying stuff in a backpack is easier than using your hands. It distributes the weigh evenly through your body. I think its a law of physics or something

 

[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.

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

They still weigh 50LB in the backpack, ya know. I think it's a law of physics or something.

Carrying stuff in a backpack is easier than using your hands. It distributes the weigh evenly through your body. I think its a law of physics or something

They were invented after my time.
Girls had purses for the secrets and the unmentionables.

 

[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

They still weigh 50LB in the backpack, ya know. I think it's a law of physics or something.

Carrying stuff in a backpack is easier than using your hands. It distributes the weigh evenly through your body. I think its a law of physics or something

They were invented after my time.
Girls had purses for the secrets and the unmentionables.

Did you use strings to tie your books together?